Skip to main content

Full text of "Dreyfus, the prisoner of Devil's Island : a full story of the most remarkable military trial and scandal of the age"

See other formats

.,■,,.. '"^^$^»^^^m.M'- 




Robert 31ey 







A Full Story of the Most Remarkable Military 
Trial and Scandal of the Age 



Cable Editor, The Associated Press 

Profusely illustrated with Portraits of the Principal 
Actors, and Photographic Reproductions of the Places 
and Scenes of Dreyfus'^ Trial and Exile 


Copyright, 1899, 



"^0 4 rsp 

IIJN 30 1949 




To the Men of America 

Whether Jew or Gentile 

Who abhor Persecution 
Who beHeve in the Reign of Justice 
Who rejoice when the sword of Truth is drawn 
And will not see it sheathed 

Cbis Ristory 

Of the Sorrows and Persecutions of 

Captain Hlf red Dreyfus 

Is dedicated by the Author 

To whom the Atlantic Cables 

By Day and Night for Months and Years 

Have told the Marvelous Story, 


The case of Alfred Dreyfus is the most remarkable episode of modern 
times. It is an incident of its own kind, without an antecedent and with- 
out a parallel. Superficially it seems to be an imbroglio of what Carlyle 
would call " despicable personalities " ; but under the surface are playing 
some of the most powerful forces of human history. The fact is, that tl^e 
real causes of this strange outbreak and upheaval in France are as univer- 
sal as the present political constitution of the world, and as old as the 
flight of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees. 

The echo of the Dreyfus case has been heard as far as the confines of 
civilization. The headlines have been cried in Tokio and Buenos Ayres. 
The name of this Franco-Hebrew captain has been spoken and his fate 
discussed by the trappers of the Yenisei, by the Peruvian silver miners, 
by the alcaldes of Guatemala, by the priests of Thibet, and by the gam- 
blers of Monte Carlo. Every cabinet, every ministry, from that of Cal- 
cutta to that of The Hague, has felt the vibrations and weighed the conse- 
quences of the case of Dreyfus. Every monarch of Asia has taken time 
to learn at least the pronunciation of the name of the prisoner of Devil's 
Island. Every schoolboy from Siberia to Texas has heard something of 
the trial of Dreyfus, and of Zola and Esterhazy. 

As a result of the thousands of columns printed about this cause celehre, 
the ordinary mortal has floundered about in a sea of doubt and specula- 
tion. Unable to afford the time to follow carefully all the exciting devel- 
opments in the drama, the average man or woman has had to be content 
with getting a glimpse, now and then, of the actors on the stage, or of the 
doings behind the scenes. Meanwhile, both men and nations have looked 
forward to the time when a calming of the swiftly whirling waves might 
enable the interested mind to sift the true from the false in the turbulent 
whirlpool of news. 


In the following pages it has been our task to attempt this work of 
condensation, elimination, and construction. In this work, we give all 
due credit to The Associated Press and its most able General Manager. 
Melville E. Stone, to whose effective direction the newspapers of this coun- 
try have been so greatly indebted in presenting to the American public 
such complete accounts of the famous trial at Eennes. 

The author of this work, from the official position which he has held, 
has had the invaluable opportunity to gather from the ever-flowing volume 
of cable intelligence all the essentials of the remarkable event which he has 
attempted to narrate in the following pages. It is but justice to say that 
no position other than that which he has held could have afforded like 
opportunities. The general American offices of The Associated Press have 
been for years the fleece of Jason, heavy with the golden sands of intelli- 
gence. If the volume of news sometimes flows by leaving vast deposits 
of sediment, the golden grains are ever in the current ; and these may be 
caught and molten into the rich bullion of human history. 

The Dreyfus case has ended. The writer of this volume has done his 
part to transmit a knowledge of the proceedings to the American people 
day by day, as the cause has unfolded itself ; and now he has reviewed 
and recorded in these pages the whole course of the event — the conspiracy, 
the crime, the suffering, the ignominy, which have been brought to light 
in the trial hall at Rennes. 

This book contains the results of the author's gathering and inquiry; 
it also contains his interpretations and deductions. He now sends the 
story of the prisoner of Devil's Island to the public, with the hope that 
the liberty-loving and truth-seeking people of his country may find in the 
perusal as much instruction and interest as the author has found in the 
preparation ot" this volume. 

William Harding. 



Intboduction, 9 

The Cause op It All, 17 ' 

Glancing Backward, 19 

What Was Found in a Waste-Basket, 21 

The Initial Passage, 25 

The Plotting Begins, 28 

The First Court-Martial, 33 

Found Guilty and Condemned, . 36 

The Degradation, 40 

Another Account of the Degradation, 45 

The "Syndicate of Silence," 47 

Exiled to Detil's Island, .....SO 

Life on Devil's Island, 63 

The Doctor's Story, 66 

Letters (w Dbbyfos to his Wife, 69 




Further Expressions of the Frisoker, .63 

The Prisoner Hears Good News, 69. 

Working for the Truth, ...........73 

Colonel Henrt to the Rescue, 77 

Zola to the Front, 81 

M. Cavaignac and the Dreyfus Case, ......... 85 

Before the Court of Cassation, , , 91 

Hopes Grow Stronger, 94 

Dretfus Brought Back to France, «... 99 

How M. Lebon Treated Dreyfus, 103 

Drbyfus's Final Appeal for Justice, 107 

Opening of the Second Dreyfus Court-Martial, ...... Ill 

The Pri80ne<r Assists the Judges, 121 

General Mercieb Confronted by Dreyfus, . . . . . . . 123 

Attempt to Murder M. Labori, • • • 132 

Ex-President and Former War Minister Clash, ...... 188 

The Prisoner's Sufferings on Devil's Island, 1^ 




Colonel Picquart and M. Bertulus Support Dreyfus, ..... 157 

The Plots against Dreyfus, 165 

"That is a Manifest Lie 1 " said Dreyfus, 176 

Dreyfus Answers his Accusers, 183 

Labori Resumes the Defence of Dreyfus, 190 

General Gonsb Cornered by M. Labori, 198 

Generals Go Down under Counsel's Fire, 205 

"Expert" Bbrtillon Attacks Dreyfus, 216 

Mercieb Accuses the Dead, 222 

Thb Eyib'ekcb of M. Bebtillon is Ridiculed, 227 

The " Little White Mouse " Testifies, ........ 23f 

Esterhazy Accuse* by Four Witnesses, 240 

The Prisoner Breaks Down Under the Strain, 245 

More Testimony for Dreyfus, 252 


More Testimony in Fav<»r of Dreyfus, 261 




Appeal to Emperor William and Kixg Humbert, .,.,.. 278 

M. Labori Threatens to Withdraw from the Case, 289 



Pleading for the Prisoner, 309 

Again Fodnd Guilty, 317 

Indignation Throughout the World, • . . . 334 

Vindication, .............. 349 

First Free Utterances of Dretfus, ......... 351 

Explains Animosity Against Him, . , 357 

"The Incident is Closed," . 365 

Is the "Incident" Closed? 368 

The Hope of France, 372 

What Europe Thought of the Pardon, 375 

Echoes of the Trial, 379 

Proposal to Boycott the Paris Exposition, 387 

Dreyfus Trial Reporting, 391 

Dictionary op Principal Names, Documents, etc., 399 


Captain Alfred Dreyfus. 

Great Actors in the Drama : Zola, Clemenceau, Mercier, Carri6re. 
Colonel Picquart in the Cherche-Midi Prison. 

First Scene of the Tragedy : Major Da Paty de Clam dictatiag Trial Passages of the 
Bordereau to Captain Dreyfus before his arrest. 

The Secret Court-Martial. 

Opening of the Trial : Dreyfus declares his Innocence. 

Madame Dreyfus and Her Children. 

Maitre Labori. 

Confession of Colonel Hemy to War Minister Cavaignac. 

lie du l!)iable : Dreyfus in his Cell. 

Court of Cassation : Assembling to hear Beaupr^'s Report in favor of Revision. 

Dreyfus's Outburst of Passion : "I am Innocent ! " 

Devil's Island : Showing Dreyfus's Hut and the Watch-Tower. 

Return of Dreyfus : Arrival on board the S^ax. 

Leaving the Train at Rablais near Rennes. 

Some of the Principal Personages in the Dreyfus Case. 

The Degradation of Dreyfus : Breaking the Sword. 

Dreyfus's Morning Walk on the Sfax. 

The Return of Dreyfus : Landing from the Sfax at Quiberon. 

On Board the Sfax : the Cabin occupied by Dreyfus. 

On Board the Sfax : The Guard at the Door of Dreyfus's Cabin. 

Leading Actors in the Drama; Cavaignac, Casimir-P^rier, Paure, de Freycinet, 

Leading Actors in the Drama ; Henry, Deroul6de, Roget, Boisdeffre, Esterhazy. 

Leading Actors in the Drama: Schwarzkoppen, Panizzardi, Scheurer - Kestner, 
Sandherr, Billot, Du Paty de Clam. 

President Emile Loubet. 

Maitre Labori with Madame Labori and his Secretary. 

Madame Labori Supporting her Wounded Husband. 


Return of Dreyfus : En route to Rennes. 

Scene between General Roget and Colonel Picquart, August 18, 1899. 

Return of Dreyfus : First Landing on French Soil. 

Witnesses against Dreyfus: General Zurlinden, Casimir-Perier, Generals Billot 
and Mercier. 

Panoramic View of Devil's Island. 

Second Court-Martial : Remarkable scene during the Session of August 24th. 

The Confrontation of Captain Freystaetter and Colonel Maurel-Pries, Judges in the 

Trial of 1894. 
Arrival of Madame Dreyfus at Rennes. 
Frenzy of Paris : Reading the News in the Streets. 

Agitation in Paris : Rush on the Boulevard for Evening Papers Announcing the Verdict. 
The Mob Rampant in Paris. 

Captain Dreyfus Leaving the Court-Martial for the Military Prison. 
The Trial at Rennes : Military Witnesses Leaving the Court after Giving their Testimony. 
Return of Dreyfus : Driving from the Quai to Quiberon. 
The Altar of St. Joseph (Wrecked by the Mob, August 20, 1899). 
Captain Dreyfus : "That I am alive to-day I owe to my Wife." 
The Trial at Rennes : Colonel Jouaust Reading the Arraignment at the Bar. 
Funeral Cortfege of Colonel Henry. 
M. Bertillon Demonstrates his " System." 
Major Forzinetti. 
M. Bertulus. 

The Trial at Rennes : Maitre Demange Addressing the Court in Behalf of Dreyfus. 
Military Prison at Rennes : the Entrance Gate. 
Military Prison at Rennes: Entrance to the Court-Room. 
Military Prison at Rennes : Scene in the Court- Yard. 



Chapter L 

If you had asked any Frenchman, after the disastrous war with Ger- 
many of 1870-71 (when, instead of the eagles of France swooping down 
upon Berlin, the eagles of Germany fluttered over Paris), the reason for this 
state of affairs, he would have replied most promptly : 

"Nous sommes traJiis." ("We are betrayed.") 

Here we have the situation in a nutshell. France is continually being 
betrayed, or fancying she is being betrayed, which is about the same thing, 
to all intents and purposes ; for the idea, as much as the fact, keeps the 
people in a continual state of turmoil, almost boiling with its superheated 

The very suggestion that a French general could be incompetent is 
protested against with angry derision by Frenchmen ; therefore treachery 
alone must be allowed to explain the military defeats and other reverses 
suffered by French arms and French diplomacy. 

In addition to this, the feeling against the Jews which first developed 
in Algeria shortly after the Franco-German war, owing to the enfranchise- 
ment of all the Jews in that French colony, to the detriment of all other 
foreigners, including the Arabs, has been steadily growing ever since, and 
has reached such a point that the most overheated Frenchmen have actu- 
ally been thinking of the possibilities of a St. Bartholomew massacre, in 
which all sympathizers with the Jews, as well as all Jews, would be killed. 

The pulse of France may be said to be the army, for nearly all French- 


men have to draw lots on coming of age to decide whether they are not to 
serve under the colors. The army permeates into every hole and comer 
of France. Red-tape and officialdom reign supreme. Nearly every fam- 
ily in France is in some way connected, or likely to be connected, with 
the army. Consequently when the feeling against the Jews spread to 
the army, the paths of the Jewish soldiers and officers were far from being 
strewn with roses. 

It is unnecessary to dwell further upon the reasons which led to this 
antipathy in France against the Jews. It is not a question of religion, 
though religion has had something to do with the state of affairs existing. 
The average Frenchman, however, cares little or nothing for any man's 
religion, though there are many good Catholics in France, and some of 
them have taken part in the popular crusade against the Jews. But it 
seems to be that a sort of feeling of envy, or jealousy of the growing 
wealth of the Jews in general, coupled with complaints against their so- 
called aggressiveness and prominence in commercial life, grows stronger 
and stronger. Eventually a number of Anti-Semitic newspapers appeared, 
principal among them being the Libre Parole (Free Speech), edited by M. 
Drumont, a Catholic, which added considerable fuel to the flames. 

The alliance, or understanding arrived at between France and Russia 
also served to add to the bitterness against the Jews. In Russia the Jews 
are despised and oppressed, and therefore Frenchmen, after the under- 
standing with Russia, fancied it was but natural, in view of the "alliance," 
to heap red-hot coals on the heads of the Jews in France. 

And so the feeling in France against the Jews grew stronger day by 
day and began to express itself in violence. 


Chapter 11. 

Here it is necessary to take a glance at the political situation just 
previous to the outbreak of the famous Dreyfus case. In November, 
1893, soon after the reassembling of Parliament, a crisis in the Ministry 
arose on account of objections to the Ministerial programme of the pre- 
mier, M. Dupuy, who was desirous of conciliating the Moderates, and on 
account of the abuse of three Eadical members of the Cabinet, MM. Yiette, 
Peytral, and Carriere. M. Dupuy was unable to conciliate, and it was agreed 
that the three Ministers should leave the Cabinet. But the discord in the 
Ministry leaked out, and owing to the failure of the Government support- 
ers to carry a vote of confidence in the Ministry, M. Dupuy and his col- 
leagues resigned November 26th, and M. Casimir-P^rier formed a Cabinet, 
being succeeded as President of the Chamber of Deputies by M. Dupuy. 

An extraordinary scene occurred in the Chamber of Deputies on De- 
cember 10, 1893. An Anarchist named Vaillant flung a bomb, filled with 
nails, among the members of the Chamber of Deputies, more or less seri- 
ously injuring forty-seven persons. Yaillant was promptly captured, tried, 
condemned, and executed. The affair served still further to inflame the 
public mind. 

The next day, M. Casimir-P^rier managed to pass through the Chamber 

of Deputies four bills, modifying the Press Law, the Criminal-Conspiracy 

Law, and the Explosive Law, and formed a fund for the preservation of 

order and the prevention of such outrages as the one which had so startled 

the world. 

Soon afterward, M. Cl^menceau, a popular leader, began the publica- 
tion of a series of " revelations " tending to show the unpreparedness of the 
Toulon Arsenal in case of war and the general unsatisfactory condition of 
the Navy of France, which did not tend to calm the public mind. The 
Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the alleged misman- 


agement in the Navy Department, and a resolution of confidence in the 
Ministry was passed by a large majority. This was in January, 1894, 

Early in March, 1894, there was an exciting debate in the Chamber 
of Deputies over a slight incident which occurred at St. Denis, where the 
mayor, a Socialist, prohibited a display in the streets of any religious 
symbol or emblem. The Minister of Public Works, M. Spuller, declared 
this was imprudent and tyrannical, and he announced that a new spirit 
would animate the Government in its treatment of matters at issue be- 
tween the laity and the clergy, namely the spirit of tolerance. The Eadi- 
cals were furious at such a suggestion, and a resolution, violently hostile 
to the clergy, was proposed by M. Brisson. The Government, however, 
triumphed, and for some time this "new spirit " was in evidence, and was 
by some people interpreted as further concessions to the Jews, thus arous- 
ing more ill-feeling against them. 

After gaining further victories over the Socialists and Radicals, M. 
Casimir-P^rier fell from office on account of an adverse vote in the Cham- 
ber of Deputies over an interpellation regarding leave of absence being 
given to the railroad emplojees, who are government servants, to attend a 
congress of the Railroad Workmen's Federation. 

M. Dupuy formed a new Cabinet on May 28, 1894, his place as Presi- 
dent of the Chamber of Deputies being taken by M. Casimir-P^rier. 

For a time the political sea was smooth. But France and the world 
at large, on June 24th, was plunged into excitement and indignation by 
the cowardly assassination of President Sadi-Carnot, at Lyons, whither 
he had gone to open an exhibition. He was stabbed to death by Caserio 
Santo, an Italian anarchist, who claimed he was inspired to commit the 
deed by a desire to avenge his fellow anarchists who had been previously 
executed in France. 

M. Casimir-P^rier was elected June 27th, to succeed M. Carnot. He 
obtained 451 votes out of the total of 851 votes cast, M. Dupuy receiving 
97 votes. 

The Dupuy Ministry resigned on the election of the new President, 
but the Cabinet was asked to remain in office. A bill was introduced into 
the Chamber by the Government, giving the law more extended powers 
against anarchists and restricting the press from publishing full reports of 
the trials of anarchists, much to the disgust of many of the irreconcilables. 


Chapter III. 

This was about the state of affairs in France when, in September, 
1894, there was brought to the Intelligence Department of the French 
War Office a mysterious document, torn into pieces, which was said to 
have been stolen from a waste-basket at the ^erman Embassy, where, at 
that time. Colonel von Schwartzkoppen was the military attache. This 
document was carefully pasted or pieced, together by members of the In- 
telligence Department, and was shown to the Minister of War, General 
Mercier; the Chief of the Headquarters Staff, General de Boisdeffre; and 
the Assistant Chief of the Headquarters Staff, General Gonse. 

Colonel Sandherr was then Chief of the Intelligence Department of the 
War Office, and among his assistants was Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. 
The former soon died, the latter committed suicide after confessing a for- 
gery. On the Headquarters Staff were three officers, Lieutenant-Colonel 
Picquart, Lieutenant-Colonel Du Paty de Clam, and Captain Dreyfus, a 

This finding of the pieces of paper in the waste-paper basket led to the 
great scandal of the century, which began at that time, and which is not 
yet ended. This document has since been known as the hordereau, or 
piece de conviction, and it was this which sent an unfortunate man to five 
years of torture, and which may yet have the most serious consequences 
for France. 

Wlien pieced together, the hordereau read : 

" Without news indicating that you wish to see me, I am sending you, 
nevertheless, sir, some interesting information : 

"1. A note on the hydraulic brake of the 120 gun and on the way in 
which this piece behaved. 

"2. A note on the covering of troops {troupes de couverture). Some 
modifications will be entailed by the new plan. 


" 3. A note on a modification in artillery formations. 

" 4. A note relative to Madagascar. 

"5. The project for a Firing Manual for field-artillery, March 14, 

" This last document is extremely difficult to procure, and I can only 
have it at my disposal for a very few days. The Minister of War has sent 
a limited number of copies to the several corps, and these corps are re- 
sponsible for it ; each officer is to send his copy back after the manoeuvres. 
If, therefore, you will take from it what interests you, and hold it after- 
ward at my disposal, I will take it, unless you should desire that I should 
have it copied in extenso and then send you the copy. I am about to go 
to the Manoeuvres." 

For some time after the discovery of the bordereau, the matter was 
kept secret and certain investigations were made. Gradually rumors of 
the discovery of treason by the War Office officials became current, and 
the words " ]Vo7is sonwies trahis ! " began to be heard outside of official 

Finally, M. Drumont, editor of the Libre Parole, is said to have ob- 
tained the first authentic details of the affair through a letter, addressed 
to M. Papillaud, of his staff, that a traitor had been found among the 
officers of the General Staff at the Ministry of War, and, it was added, 
the traitor was a Jew. The writer of this anonymous letter intimated 
that if a search was made among "the Dreyfuses, the Meyers, and the 
Levys," the traitor could be identified. Later, during the latter part 
of October, 1894, M. Papillaud received another letter, apparently from 
the same source, saying the name of the traitor was Captain Alfred Drey- 
fus, of the Fourteenth Regiment of Artillery, and adding that the traitor 
had been confined in the Cherche-Midi prison since October 15th. The 
letter contained the words : 

" People say he is travelling, but they lie, because they would like to 
smother the business. All Israel is astir. Tout h vous, Henry." 

The staff of the Libre Parole were then alive to the importance of the 
story, and gradually many of the facts in the case leaked out. The pris- 
oner, it appeared, was accused of having sold important documents relat- 
ing to the national defence to the agents of a foreign power, Germany. 
He was arrested on October 15th, by Lieutenant-Colonel D-u Paty de Clam, 


The following is a reduced facsimile of a portion of the famous lor- 
dercciu : 

iK^ tffU* 



acting under the orders of General Mercier, the Minister of War, had been 
imprisoned in the Cherche-Midi Prison, and the most extraordinary pre- 
cautions had been taken to keep the affair secret, even from Dreyfus's 
own family. Madame Dreyfus, his wife, it developed later, was fright- 
ened into silence by Du Paty de Clam. 

France, naturally, became greatly excited, and those who had been the 
most bitter in their denunciations of the Jews found ample material for 
" I-told-you-so " statements. All kinds of sensational reports were circu- 
lated. Some rumors had it that the whole country had been betrayed, 
from first to last, army and navy, and that France was almost at the mercy 
of her enemies. People even went so far as to declare that war with Ger- 
many was imminent. The recall of the German Ambassador was openly 
demanded, and all kinds of pressure was brought to bear on the Govern- 
ment to clear up the mystery without delay and let the public know the 
whole truth. But, the authorities maintained an air of mystery; the dark- 
est hints were dropped, the name of Eussia began to be bandied about, 
and the War Ministry was said to have in its possession secrets which, 
if divulged, would practically cause the upheaval of Europe. 


Chapter IV. 

When the outburst of public feeling could no longer be withstood, the 
Government made up its mind to let the world know something about 
what was going on, and, at a Cabinet Council, November 1, 1894, the 
Minister of War, General Mercier, formally announced his intention of or- 
dering proceedings against Captain Alfred Dreyfus, of the Fourteenth Eeg- 
iment of Artillery, attached to the General Staff, for disclosing secret War 
Office documents to foreigners. 

A despatch from Paris to the London Times, announcing this fact, 
added : 

" Although the arrest of Captain Dreyfus has made a great sensation, 
every one feels that the honor of the French army will not be impugned 
if one solitary officer should be convicted of treachery." 

The developments of the case showed this correspondent to be some- 
what in error; for it is impossible to imagine a darker showing of dishon- 
orable transactions among French officers than has since been disclosed. 

Dreyfus, a name which must now go down to all future ages as that of 
the central figure of the greatest trial of this age, was born in 1859, at 
Mulhausen, Alsace, one of the provinces given up to Germany by France 
as a result of the outcome of the war of 1870-71. His parents were Al- 
satian Jews of good standing and considerable wealth, and his brothers 
conducted a large cotton-spinning factory at Mulhausen. This, inciden- 
tally, seems to have been one of the causes which led to suspicions 
against Dreyfus. Although he does not appear to have been of a particu- 
larly inquisitive turn of mind, it has been shown that while in the army 
he made a number of inquiries, since classed as suspicious^ but which ap- 
pear to have really been founded on nothing more than a desire to obtain 
information which would lead to perfecting the spinning machinery of the 
family cotton factory. He is &hQwn to have asked, for instance, Eobin, 


the inventor of the Eobin shell, a number of questions on this subject, but 
his enemies tried to turn this to an entirely different intention. 

After the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany, the inhabitants 
of those provinces, by agreement between the two countries, were given the 
option, or privilege, of declaring for French or German nationality. In 
other words, if they chose to become German subjects they were at lib- 
erty to dp so, while if they elected to become citizens of France there was 
no objection to that. Dreyfus chose to remain a French citizen, and, when 
he reached the proper age, he entered the Polytechnic School, where he 
was educated. This school, by the way, is the nursery of French officers, 
just as West Point is the school for American officers. In 1880 Dreyfus 
entered the artillery as a sub-lieutenant. He cannot have been backward 
in his study or have shown any objectionable characteristics at that time, 
for in 1882 he became a lieutenant, and in 1889 was promoted captain. 
Later, he was appointed to a position in the offices of the General Staff at 
the French War Office, being the first Jew to be so honored. 

During his early years in the French army, Dreyfus, like most other 
French officers, seems to have led a pretty gay life, and, possibly, he ob- 
tained more credit for this than he really deserved, if some reports are to 
be believed, by boasting of conquests and claiming to have lost large sums 
in gambling, whereas it appears that while he had relations with a married 
woman, a Mrs. Bodson, while a lieutenant, he never gambled, and his con- 
duct was most exemplary after his marriage, which occurred in 1889. 

The pay of French officers and men is ridiculously small, and any offi- 
cer having private means, as Dreyfus had, is naturally envied by those 
who are not similarly blessed. This, undoubtedly, had something to do 
with the feeling which was aroused against Dreyfus. General de Bois- 
deffre, the Chief of the Headquarters Staff, for instance, received a salary 
of only $5,000 a year, while Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's pay was but 
$1,000 a year. In spite of these meagre stipends, French officers have to 
make a great deal of show, or, if they do not have to do it, they fancy it 
is incumbent upon them. Under these circumstances a man handicapped 
by the fact that he depended entirely on his pay could hardly fail to feel 
a little jealousy of those like Dreyfus the Jew, who did not depend on 
their pay alone. 

Captain Dreyfus still further improved his position financially when 


he married, for his wife is the daughter of M. Hadamard, a wealthy dia- 
mond merchant. They had two children and occupied expensive apart- 
ment in the Avenue du Trocad^ro. 

An entirely impartial opinion of Dreyfus is that he was a man of easy 
temper, of no particular ability, unlikely to shine in the military world, 
and easily depressed and discouraged. A good husband and father, he 
adored his family and took life easy. In return he was beloved by his 
wife and family, and loved by his brothers. These facts would seem to 
show that the man certainly possessed admirable qualities, for no woman 
could exhibit the steady, loyal devotion to a husband that Madame Drey- 
fus has exhibited unless the object of her affection possessed some sterling 
qualities. Indeed, the brightest feature of the whole tragedy is the grand 
spirit of loyalty shown by Madame Dreyfus toward her husband, her im- 
plicit belief in his innocence, the heroic manner in which she pointed out 
to him the path of duty, telling him, for the sake of his children, to go to 
his distant, pestilential island prison, there to await the hour when his 
innocence would be established. Had it not been for this vnfely devotion, 
there is no doubt Dreyfus would not have lived to stand his second trial. 

The brothers of Dreyfus, in fact all his relatives and friends, have 
shown steadfastness in this loyalty, which would seem still further proof 
that the man was not made of the material from which spies are moulded. 
Besides, the paltry sums, forty and sixty dollars, paid by the agents of 
foreign powers for valuable French military secrets, as subsequently 
shown, were certainly no attraction to Dreyfus, the well-to-do officer, 
happy in his home and family, and wanting for nothing. However, the 
above is but a pen-picture of the famous prisoner as he appeared ; subse- 
quent events and his trials must complete this light sketch of the prisoner 
of Devil's Island. 


Chapter V. 

After the announcement of the intention of the French Government 
to prosecute Dreyfus on the charge of treason, the whole machinery of the 
War Office was set in motion to establish a case against the prisoner. The 
day after the official declaration to this effect (November 2d), the French 
authorities intercepted a telegram sent by Major Panizzardi, the Ital- 
ian military attach^ at Paris, whose name had been mentioned in con- 
nection with Dreyfus, to the Italian Government. The exact wording of 
this despatch was not made known. It was understood in the first in- 
stance to have been a request upon the part of Panizzardi that his Gov- 
ernment deny, if it had no relations with Dreyfus, any connection with 
the prisoner, and asking that the Italian Ambassador at the French capi- 
tal might be instructed to publish a statement to this effect in order to 
silence certain statements which were appearing in the press. This de- 
spatch seems to have been twisted in translations so as to convey an en- 
tirely different meaning to that of the writer, and was later used, surrepti- 
tiously, at the court-martial of the prisoner, and without the knowledge of 
his counsel or of himself, in obtaining his conviction. 

After the prisoner's guilt was suspected he was subjected to a series of 
tests. For instance, he was asked to write under dictation a letter which 
contained terms similar to those of the hordereau. The dictation was 
given by Colonel Du Paty de Clam, with the Chief of Detectives, M. 
Cochefert, hiding behind the drapings of the room. 

As a result of this dictation test, Dreyfus's arrest was decided upon by 
Colonel Du Paty de Clam. It was a cold day and, as the prisoner ex- 
plained later, his hand may have shaken somewhat, which was taken as a 
semblance of guilt by Colonel Du Paty de Clam, who cried : 

" Vous trcmUcz ! " (" You tremble ! " ) 

"No," replied Dreyfus, "my fingers are cold." 



The following is a portion of the test letter dictated to Dreyfus by 
Colonel Du Paty de Clam : 


r^A ^1 


^^ .<^>^ ^c-.-^ ^s^n^-H^^^ ^^^ 



^ DE CLAM ' ' 


But with a flourish of trumpets, it may be said, Paty de Clam made 
the signal agreed upon; the Chief of the Detectives entered, and M. 
Cochefert exclaimed, as he touched Dreyfus on the shoulder: 

"I arrest you in the name of the Minister of War." 

Captain Dreyfus submitted quietly to his arrest. He seemed, as he 
afterward exclaimed, to be completely dazed, and had no clear recollection 
of what occurred. When he asked to be informed regarding the charge 
against him he was put off with mysterious phrases, and it was not until 
some time later that he became aware he was charged with treason. 

The prisoner was taken to the Cherche Midi, or military prison, of 
which institution Major Forzinetti was then the governor. He was 
escorted to the prison by Lieutenant-Colonel Henry and the detectives, 
and he was handed into the custody of Major Forzinetti with an order 
from the Minister of War by which the prisoner, described as being ac- 
cused of high treason, was not to have his name entered on the prison 
books, but was to be kept in secret confinement, and was not to be allowed 
to hold any communication with anybody in the prison, much less outside 
of it, with the exception of Major Forzinetti and the chief keeper of the 
prison. These officials were strictly prohibited from telling anybody of 
the arrest of the prisoner. 

A book could be written upon what transpired in the Cherche Midi 
while Dreyfus was confined there. 

Major Forzinetti, at a later date, gave some idea of what occurred dur- 
ing that period. He said, in brief : 

"On October 14, 1894, I received a confidential despatch from the 
War Office. It informed me that on the following morning a field-officer 
would call at the prison in order to acquaint me with a secret communi- 
cation. On the 15th, Lieutenant-Colonel d'Abeville, in full uniform, 
handed me a despatch, informing me that Captain Dreyfus, of the Four- 
teenth Eegiment of Artillery, serving on the General Staff of the army, 
would be imprisoned on the charge of high treason, and that I was per- 
sonally responsible for his safe custody. Colonel d'Abeville asked me to 
give my word of honor that I would strictly carry out the minister's in- 
junctions. The prisoner was to have no sort of communication with the 
outer world, and was to have neither knife, paper, pen, ink, nor pencil. 
He was to be treated in the matter of food as an ordinary criminal, but 


this order was cancelled upon my remark that it was illegal. The colo- 
nel, without going into particulars, ordered me to take whatever precau- 
tions I might deem necessary to prevent the fact of the prisoner's arrest 
being known in the prison or outside. He asked to see the cells set apart 
for officers, and selected one for Captain Dreyfus. He told me to be on 
my guard against tlie intrigues of the haute Juiverie (high Jewdom) as 
soon as the news of arrest should reach their ears. I saw nobody and 
nobody attempted to get at me. I never visited the prisoner except in 
company of the head keeper, who alone had the key of the cell. Nobody 
saw the prisoner during his detention except in my presence. Wlien, 
after his arrival, I went to see the prisoner, he was in a state of excite- 
ment impossible to describe — like a madman. His eyes were bloodshot, 
and he had upset everything in his room. I was able at length to quiet 
him. I felt that he was innocent. " 

A further insight into the methods of the military inquisitors may be 
gathered from the following additional statement of Major Forzinetti: 

"Du Paty de Clam, who had arrested Dreyfus at the War Office, called 
at the prison from October 18th to October 24th, with the special author- 
ity of the Minister of War [Mercier] to examine the prisoner. He asked 
me whether he could not enter Dreyfus's cell noiselessly with a bull's-eye 
sufficiently powerful to throw a flood of light on the face of the prisoner, 
whom he wanted to take by surprise in order to upset him. I said it was 
not possible. He examined the prisoner twice, and each time dictated to 
him sentences taken from the famous document (the bordereau) in order to 
compare the two writings. 

" During the whole of this period Captain Dreyfus was in a state of ter- 
rible excitement. In the hall one could hear him moaning, crying, talking 
aloud, protesting his innocence. He knocked against the furniture, against 
the walls, and did not seem aware of the injuries he was inflicting upon 
himself. He had not a moment's rest, and when overcome with fatigue 
and agony he lay, dressed, on his bed. His sleep was haunted by horrible 
nightmares. He had such convulsions during his sleep that he sometimes 
fell on the floor. During this agony of nine days he took nothing but 
beef tea and a little wine with sugar. 

" On the 24th, in tlie morning, his mental state, bordering on insanity, 
seemed so serious, that, anxious to screen my responsibility, I reported it 


to the Minister of War [Mercier] and to the Governor of Paris. In the 
afternoon I was summoned by General de Boisdeffre, and accompanied 
him to the War Office. The general asked me my opinion. I replied 
without hesitation that Dreyfus was not guilty. General de Boisdeffre 
entered the minister's room alone, and, coming out again, looking an- 
noyed, he said to me : ' The general is leaving Paris to attend his niece's 
wedding, and gives me full powers during his absence. Try and keep 
Dreyfus alive until his return, and the minister will do what he pleases.' 
General de Boisdeffre told me to send the prison doctor to Dreyfus. He 
prescribed some soothing drugs. 

"Du Paty de Clam called nearly every day after the 27th, to examine 
Dreyfus and to get new specimens of his handwriting. His real object 
was to wring an admission of guilt, against which Dreyfus never ceased 
to protest. 

"After the verdict Dreyfus was taken back to his cell, where I saw 
him about midnight. On seeing me he burst into sobs, and said : * My 
only crime is to be born a Jew.' His despair was such that I was afraid 
for his mind, and had him watched day and night. 

" I have been for many years at the head of military prisons, and have 
some knowledge of prisoners, and I can assert emphatically that a dreadful 
mistake has been committed. My superiors have known my opinion from 
the first. Several generals and statesmen are just as certain as I am of 
Dreyfus's innocence, but cowardice prevents them from speaking." 


Chapter VL 


V Captain Alfred Dreyfus was tried by secret court-martial, at the 
^herche-Midi Prison, the trial beginning on December 19, 1894, At the 
time nothing was allowed to transpire regarding the proceedings, but all 
the main facts in the case have since become known. 

The first code of military justice, which was in force at that time in 
France, was promulgated in 1857, and leaves much to be desired so far as 
obtaining justice for an accused person is concerned. 

The principle which governs the composition of councils of war is 
as follows : 

No military man can be judged by his subordinates. He has the 
right to the jurisdiction of his superiors or his peers. That is to say, 
following the rank of the accused, the composition of a court-martial va- 
ries. Captain Dreyfus, for instance, was tried by a court-martial presided 
over by a colonel, Maurel-Pries, and had among its members a lieutenant- 
colonel, three chiefs of battalion (majors), or chiefs of squadrons (majors), 
and two captains. The commissary of the Government, or prosecutor, 
has to be of a rank at least equal to that of the accused. The defence is 
provided for in the presence of a lawyer or through an officer, according 
to the choice of the accused. The members of the court-martial sit in full 
uniform, while the accused appears in undress uniform and without arms. 

As to the procedure before a French court-martial, it is about the same 
as before French civil tribunals. The president of the court, before inter- 
rogating the accused, warns him that the law gives him every latitude to 
explain matters and present his defence. But the president remains sole 
master of the interrogatory, the other members of the court-martial being 
only authorized to put, through the president, any questions which may 
seem to them to be of a nature likely to throw light on the case and which 
the president's questioning may have omitted. 


The witnesses depose according to the ordinary customs of France. 
That is to say, they mount to the witness stand and practically make a 
speech for the prisoner or against him, and make almost any allegations they 
choose. In fact, the prisoner is practically looked upon as guilty, and it 
is considered his duty to prove himself not guilty. 

After each deposition, the president of the court is called upon to put 
the following question to the witness : 

" You affirm that you have been speaking of the accused, here present. 
Do you formally declare you recognize him ? " 

After taking the testimony, the commissary of the Government makes 
his plea for the punishment of the accused, and counsel for the defence 
replies, after which the members of the court-martial retire and deliberate 
in private. The votes of the court are received according to the ranks of 
the members, beginning at the lowest grade, the president being the last 
to make his opinion known. 

After the judgment of the court has been drawn up, the members of 
the Council of War re-enter the court, stand upright, and when the president 
begins the initial formula of the announcement of the judgment, " In the 
name of the French people," the members of the court salute and the mili- 
tary guard on duty present arms. 

The judgment of the court is then read, the presence of the accused not 
being permitted, though the sentence is made known to him later by a 
special ceremony, the clerk of the court reading the sentence to him be- 
fore the guard, under arms. * ^c-— 

The members of the first Dreyfus court-martial were : Colenel Maurel- 
Pries, President; Lieutenant-Colonel Echemann, Majors Florentine, Pa- 
tron, and Gallet, and Captains Eoche and Freystaetter. 

Major Brisset acted as Government commissary, and prosecuted the 
prisoner in behalf of the Government. 

The greatest interest was taken in the trial, and great efforts were 
made on the part of the public to get a glimpse of the prisoner. The ap- 
proaches to the prison were crowded, and the greatest military and police 
precautions were taken to prevent a disturbance. As previousl}' noted, 
the word " treason " has an almost magical effect upon the French public, 
and, therefore, when it became known that " Nous sommes traliis " for 
once had apparently some foundation in fact, the excitement was very great. 


Dreyfus was taken to the prison before the crowd had time to assem- 
ble, and all sorts of erroneous rumors were set afloat in order to complicate 
matters and divert the attention of the populace from the trial. 

Dreyfus entered the court escorted by Republican Guards. He was 
apparently cool and calm, bowed to the court, and quietly advanced to the 
seat set apart for him. It has been claimed, however, that his eyes were 
filled with tears, and that it was with difi&culty he preserved his self-con- 

In this connection a curious theory was advanced and found a number 
of believers. It was to the effect that Dreyfus was more of a German hero 
and martyr than a French traitor.^ It was asserted that he "opted," or 
pronounced himself in favor of French citizenship, at the time his native 
province, Alsace, was turned over to Germany ; entered the French Mili- 
tary School, Army, and Ministry of War, all with one fixed purpose, 
namely, to serve the Germany he loved against the France which he hated. 
It was added that he was not more than eighteen years of age when he 
formed this project, and that he had carefully weighed all his chances — 
except the fearful imprisonment on Devil's Island. Since that time, how- 
ever, no evidence has been forthcoming to substantiate this theory, while 
there has been abundant testimony to prove that Dreyfus was actuated by 
feelings of hearty loyalty to France. Indeed, it has been the writer's ex- 
perience with Alsatians and Lorrainers to find them ultra-loyal to France. 
With but few exceptions (perhaps only a single exception — an Alsatian 
soldier who was eventually sentenced to penal servitude for life as a result 
of his bitter hatred for France), the Alsatians and Lorrainers of France 
appear to detest the Germans more bitterly than the French of the interior, 
which is a matter not easily accounted for. 


Chapter VIL 


Colonel Maueel-Pkies, president of the court, began the proceedings 
with interrogating the prisoner in the usual stereotyped manner, the latter 
saying his name was Alfred Dreyfus, that he was thirty-five years of age, a 
captain of artillery, and bom at Miilhausen, Alsace. 

At the opening of the proceedings the court was filled with officers of 
all grades and arms, and some fifty reporters were present. But when this 
stage had been reached, the president called upon Major Brisset, the Pros- 
ecutor, or Government Commissary, to make a formal charge against the 
prisoner; whereupon the major arose, and, to the astonishment of probably 
all but the members of the court, requested that the proceedings be con- 
ducted in camera, or in secret, otherwise behind closed doors. He ad- 
vanced in support of his plea the statement that the publicity which would 
be given to the testimony, if allowed to be printed in the press, would be 
"against the public interests," meaning that matters would be revealed 
which it was advisable that the enemies of Prance should not know. A 
plea of this description has great weight with any French court, and there 
was no doubt of the outcome from the moment the prosecutor addressed 
the president. 

Dreyfus, at these proceedings, was represented by Maitre Demange, a 
lawyer of considerable ability, who had been retained by the relatives of 
Dreyfus. Although not a brilliant lawyer, in the sense the term is gen- 
erally accepted, Maitre Demange proved himself to be a steady, hard- 
working seeker after the truth and a conservative adviser of great value. 
It was not his first experience in such cases, which was probably the 
reason which led to his being selected to defend Dreyfus. He had 
defended other men charged with treason, and had the confidence of the 

At the conclusion of the plea of Major Brisset, Maitre Demange 


strongly opposed having the trial of the prisoner conducted in secret. He 
entered into a lengthy argument on the subject, and presented a number 
of good reasons why the trial should be in public. Subsequent events 
showed that his contention was well based, and France would have been 
spared a great deal of trouble and loss of prestige, from a judicial, politi- 
cal and military standpoint, if the arguments of the lawyer had been 
allowed to prevail. But there seems to be no doubt now that no amount 
of argument would have changed the predetermined opinion of that court- 
martial on the subject of the secret sitting. Beyond doubt, orders were 
issued from high quarters to have the trial conducted in secret. 

The president of the court insisted that the lawyer must not make any 
reference in his plea to the actual charge against the prisoner, which al- 
most disarmed the latter's counsel at the outset. 

A long controversy followed between the lawyer, the president, and 
the prosecutor. 

"There are other interests at stake," cried the prosecutor, "than those 
of the defence and of the prosecution." 

That some inkling of the Government's case had reached the counsel 
for the defence was evidenced by the fact that Maitre Demange, at one 
stage of his argument, referred to the "solitary document" brought for- 
ward against the prisoner, whereupon he was instantly silenced by the 
president, and as the lawyer insisted, in spite of this rebuff, upon refer- 
ring to the "solitary document," though loyally refraining from entering 
into details, the court rose, and when the members of the court-martial 
returned to the trial hall the president, after severely reprimanding Maitre 
Demange for having " persistently insisted " upon " raising the discussion 
of the essentials of the case," announced that the trial of Dreyfus would 
take place behind closed doors. 

In spite of the veil of secrecy thrown over the proceedings, enough 
has since transpired to show that the following was the procedure : 

The indictment of the prisoner, which had been prepared by Major 
d'Ormescheville, was read, and then the court took the testimony of three 
experts in handwriting, MM. Pelletier, Charavay, and Teysonniere, who 
had been called upon to examine the handwriting of the bordereau and 
Dreyf us's handwriting, particularly the test dictation prepared by Du Paty 
de Clam. 


The first of the experts, Pelletier, testified that the handwriting of 
Dreyfus was identical with that of the bordereau. 

The second expert, M. Charavay, testified that the two documents 
were written by the same person, adding, however, that he would never 
have any one condemned to imprisonment for life on such testimony as he 
was then able to give. 

The third expert, M. Teysonniere, also thought the bordereau might 
have been written by Dreyfus. 

Du Paty de Clam testified elaborately to the many experiments, some 
of them of the most ridiculous nature, which he had made in connection 
with Dreyfus, particularly referring to the prisoner's "nervous movements 
of the foot when interrogated, " and to the "trembling of his hand," when 
asked to write from dictation. 

Colonel Henry, chief of the Intelligence Department, told the court he 
was persuaded the prisoner was guilty. He added that he had other rea- 
sons than those which appeared in the indictment to show Dreyfus was 
the traitor. But when he was urged to speak out and explain what he 
meant, Henry drew back and exclaimed : 

" I am a soldier, and my k^pi must ignore what is in my head. " 

The verdict was rendered the same evening. The prisoner was pro- 
nounced "Guilty," and was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in a for- 
tified place, and to military degradation. 

Night had fallen when this act in the drama was ended. The news 
soon spread with the public outside of the Cherche-Midi prison, and there 
were hideous cries of " Down with the Jews ! " " Down with the traitors ! " 
" Vive la France ! " " Vive I'Arm^e ! " which must have reached the un- 
happy prisoner. 

The sentence was read to Dreyfus by gaslight, in the dully illuminated 
hall of the prison, with the military guard presenting arms and every ac- 
companiment of military horror which it was possible to imagine. The 
prisoner listened, speechless, to the words which sent him to a living tomb. 
He appeared utterly unnerved, helpless, friendless — plunged into the deep- 
est despair. His face was almost as white as it was possible to be, and 
drops of cold perspiration gathered on his brow. His lips were parched 
and of a dull, blue color. His eyes were bloodshot and glared with the 
expression seen in those of hunted animals. Apparently the prisoner wa,q 


stupefied, for he did not seem to realize that the scene transpiring in that 
dark prison was not a horrible nightmare. A few words of comfort from 
his lawyer, a whispered message from his wife, and the crushed, wincing 
man was led back to the room which he was not to leave again until taken 
to the scene of his degradation. 

" I am innocent ! " he cried hoarsely, the words choking him. " I am 
innocent ! " " My God ! You have condemned an innocent man ! " 

But, the military inquisitors had already turned their backs on the 
hapless captain, and with fierce mutterings against the traitor they hurried 
away to their different haunts, while France was supposed to have breathed 
sighs of relief, as evidenced by the hoarse cries in the streets : " Down 
with the Jews ! " " Down with the traitor ! " " Vive la France I " " Vive 
I'Arm^e !" " Vive la E^publique ! " 

Such were the cries which broke the stillness of the night. 

Throughout the evening Paris was in a state of the greatest agitation. 
The evening papers, briefly announcing the verdict, sold like the prover- 
bial " hot cakes " on the boulevards. The caf^s were crowded with people 
eagerly discussing the case. The military and other clubs were packed 
with excited people, and it may be said hardly a voice, hardly a murmur 
was raised in behalf of Dreyfus, the convicted traitor. 

But in a darkened room in a pretty apartment on the Avenue du Tro- 
cad^ro knelt a weeping woman. By her side were two men of stern bear- 
ing and a stout, honest-looking personage, a lawyer. The woman wept 
and prayed, but the men soothed her as much as possible, and assured her 
of their unalterable sympathy. 

Two children, in their nurser}', had been put to bed, lulled into slumber 
by the legend that their father, a captain of artillery, had been sent away 
on foreign service, and would not return for a long time, perhaps for years. 
By this pleasant tale the mother's grief and agitation was accounted for, and 
the next day the children were taken away to a distant spot, far from the 
cruel echoes of the noisy world, where they have since grown up, praying 
nightly for the return of the absent father, so long away " on foreign service." 

Dreyfus, in his prison room, passed the night with his head upon his 
table, now and then writing short, feverish- worded notes ; but his thoughts 
were fixed upon those rooms in the Avenue du Trocad^ro where his wife 
and children waited and prayed. 


Chapter VIIL 


The degradation of Captain Dreyfus took place on tlie Square of the 
Military School, at Paris, at nine o'clock on the morning of January 5, 
1895, in the presence of 5,000 troops, a number of newspaper representa- 
tives and others. It was described by cable as follows, at the time: 

Some time before daylight detachments from all the regiments in the 
district of Paris were on the march to the parade ground. These detach- 
ments comprised raw recruits, veterans, and men of all grades of the ser- 
vice, and as they arrived at the Ecole Militaire they took the positions 
assigned to them. 

The weather was clear and bright, but cold. 

Workingmen, who were hurrying down the Eue Cherche-Midi about 
seven o'clock on the morning of the degradation of Dreyfus, stopped for a 
moment to stare at the prison van, surrounded by mounted soldiers, which 
was standing outside the Military Prison waiting to convey Captain Drey- 
fus to the Ecole Militaire. Many of the men shook their fists in the 
direction of the condemned man's quarters and uttered deep curses upon 
the head of the traitor. 

About 7:40 A.M., a veteran soldier, employed as janitor in the 
prison, threw back the iron gates, and Captain Dreyfus, flanked by 
two soldiers carrying guns with fixed bayonets, walked out and hur- 
riedly mounted the steps of the van between lines of Republican Guards. 
The van, which was driven by a trooper, took its course across the Eue 
Dupin and down the Eues de Babylone and d'Estr^es, crossing the Avenue 
de Breteuil, to the ifecole Militaire, where it arrived at five minutes of eight. 

Dreyfus mounted the van with perfect unconcern. He stood erect, 
and his cheeks were not whitened by the customary pallor of prisoners. 
His appearance was more like that of a man going on parade than that of 
a prisoner condemned to life imprisonment and official degradation. At 


8:30 A.M., General Darras, commandiug the troops, arrived. He was 
assisted by Colonel Fayette and a major of the Paris garrison. The 
troops formed a square, facing the main entrance to the parade ground, 
where a band composed of drums and bugles was stationed. 

The Thirty-ninth Eegiment, having Captain Dreyfus in charge, was 
one of the first bodies of troops to arrive at the parade ground. 

At precisely nine o'clock the prisoner was led out from the left wing 
of the square. He was accompanied by a squad of artillery soldiers. He 
was pale, but with a firm step marched, with his sword in his right hand, 
to the centre of the square, where he was awaited by General Darras. 
Dreyfus halted before the general and stood at "attention." 

The adjutant of the Eepublican Guard then read the verdict of the 
court-martial which had condemned Captain Dreyfus. While the verdict 
was being read Dreyfus flushed somewhat, but otherwise he showed no 
sign of losing his composure. 

After the reading of the verdict General Darras addressed the prisoner, 
saying : 

"Dreyfus, you are unworthy to carry arms. In the name of the peo- 
ple of France we degrade you." 

The adjutant then walked up to Dreyfus, and took from him his sword, 
which, with a quick, sharp movement, he broke across his knee, casting 
the pieces upon the ground. He then cut the buttons and insignia of 
rank from the uniform of the condemned captain, and threw them also 
upon the ground. 

At this point in the proceedings, Dreyfus was for a moment moved by 
a sense of his humiliation, but he quickly suppressed his emotion and 
shouted in a loud voice : " Vive la France ! " 

Continuing, he said : " You have degraded an innocent man ! I swear 
that I am innocent ! " 

He seemed about to speak further, but his voice was drowned by the 
rolling of the drums, which was not loud enough, however, to drown a 
ringing shout from the crowd, in the rear of the soldiers, of "A mort le 
traitre I " (" Death to the traitor ! " ) 

The ceremony up to this time had lasted just four minutes. The 
drums then beat, and the degraded man began his march along the foul 
sides of the square, in what is known as "la parade de V execution*" 


The scene was very impressive, and many of the younger soldiers 
turned their heads away. 

Dreyfus marched in a firm and soldierly way, with a quick, short step, 
and when he reached the delegation of officers from the Eeserves, he raised 
his hand and said: 

" Tell the whole of France that I am innocent ! " 

Turning to the left from the position of the Eeserve officers, he came 
before the members of the press, to whom he said in a firm voice : 

" I declare that I am innocent ! " 

The end of the march was reached at twenty minutes past nine, after 
which the condemned man was taken to the barrack gate and turned over 
to the civil authorities. 

A large crowd of people had gathered at the entrance of the parade 
ground, and from among them came not one word of sympathy, but the 
cry of "A mort le traitre ! " ("Death to the traitor! ") was taken up by 
them and repeated until the miserable man was out of the hearing of his 

Dreyfus was received from his escort at the barrack gate by four gen- 
darmes, who placed him in an ordinary prison van, and at half-past nine 
the troops marched out of the parade ground, back to their respective 

As a measure of preparation for stripping the prisoner of his insignia 
of rank, etc., the prison tailor on the day before removed all the buttons 
and stripes from Dreyfus's tunic, the red stripes from his trousers, and the 
regimental number and braid from his collar and cap. These were all re- 
placed with a single stitch, so that they could be torn away readily. 

The condemned man's sword was also filed almost in twain, in order 
that it might be easily broken. The adjutant's quick movement and ap- 
parent effort in breaking the sword was consequently mere pretence, as 
only a mere touch was necessary. 

As the prison van sped through the streets the people stood on the 
sidewalks and with uplifted hands menaced and cursed the unfortunate 

It is stated that when Dreyfus spoke to the officers of the Eeserve, 
protesting his innocence, the latter retorted: " Down with the Judaa ! " 
" Silence, traitor ! " etc. 


Dreyfus became greatly excited at this, and turned again appealingly 
to the officers, but the soldiers escorting him quickly seized him and 
forced him to continue his humiliating march. 

Another report said that when the officers of the Reserve cried out, 
"Down with the Judas!" "Silence, traitor! " etc., Dreyfus was stunned 
for a moment, but, quickly recovering himself, he looked upon them 
through his eye-glasses, which he wore throughout the ceremony, and 
with a smile of contempt said in a clear, firm voice : 

" You are cowards ! " 

Before the ceremony of degradation began the vast space in the Place 
de Fontenoy, facing the courtyard of the Ecole Militaire, was crowded 
with men and women. Many persons climbed the base of the hexagonal 
granite monument erected to the memory of the Parisians who were killed 
in 1870, and others hired places upon step-ladders at the rate of five francs 
each and maintained their positions throughout in the biting wind. 

Toward the end of the ceremony the sky became overcast with snow 
clouds, which the sun occasionally pierced, but the air was extremely cold. 

Although the ceremony of degrading the condemned officer presented 
a theatrical aspect to civilians, it had so profound an impression upon the 
military spectators that during the short time it lasted a newspaper repre- 
sentative who was present counted within a few feet of him six officers, 
whose trembling limbs were scarcely able to hold them up, while hundreds 
of others, officers and privates, stood with blanched cheeks and straining 
eyes, utterly unable to control their feelings. 

The crowds outside, who kept up a continual shout of "Death to the 
traitor ! " became almost delirious, and had the ceremony taken place in an 
open space like the Esplanade des Invalides it is absolutely certain that 
twenty at least of the most violent of these fanatics would have broken 
through the square and tried to lynch Dreyfus. 

Generally ninety-nine out of every hundred men who are thus degraded 
weep like children during the ceremony, but Dreyfus was firm through- 
out. During the entire ceremony he appeared to be less affected than 
almost any person present. Except that he was stung for an instant by 
the taunts of his fellow-officers, he was perfectly cool. 

Dreyfus, upon reaching the prison depot, said to the governor of the 
institution ; 


"My innocence will be recognized some day. I have confidence that 
Providence in its own time will reveal the real culprit." 

After Dreyfus's height and other dimensions were taken, he was trans- 
ferred to the Prison de la Sant^, where he remained until deported for 
confinement in a fortress, in accordance with his sentence. 


Chapter IX. 

The following account of the degradation of Dreyfus, written by 
"Jacques St. Cere," the famous correspondent of the New York Herald, is 
interesting as it gives the impressions formed at the time by the writer : 

" The degradation of Captain Alfred Dreyfus from his military rank 
and honors took place this morning (January 5, 1895), on the parade 
ground of the Nicole Militaire. 

" By order of General Saussier, Military Governor of Paris, no card of 
admission was issued to the correspondent of any foreign paper. Never- 
theless the representative of the Herald was present throughout the whole 

" The scene was one that can never be forgotten. When the adjutant 
tore away the insignia of his rank from his cap, Dreyfus shouted : ' Vive 
la France ! ' and this cry he repeated when his sword was broken. This 
caused a profound emotion. Then he was led, bareheaded, his uniform 
stripped of all its gold lace and buttons, along the front of the troops. 

"When he arrived in front of the group of two hundred journalists and 
civil officials who were permitted to witness the ceremony, Dreyfus cried 

" ' Tell the whole of France that I am an innocent man ! ' 

" The way in which this cry was given, and the appearance of the pris- 
oner, who held himself very erect in his mutilated uniform, his red face, 
his bloodshot but dry eyes, produced a profound impression even on those 
who were the most thoroughly convinced of his guilt. Dreyfus had in 
every respect the appearance of a man protesting against a great injustice. 

" There certainly is a great deal of mystery about this case. On the 
one hand the officials of the ministry of war affirm that Captain Dreyfus 
is guilty, while on the other hand Maitre Demange, whose position as a 
leading member of the French bar is above question, solemnly asserts that 


his client is innocent, something which, now that the case is at an end, 
there is no reason for his doing unless he is convinced that such is the fact. 

"At the end of the ceremony of degradation the prisoner, with hand- 
cuffs on his wrists, was placed in a prison van, and removed to the police 
d^p5t. His name was struck from the army rolls, and he was henceforth 
treated like any ordinary criminal. 

" The degradation of Dreyfus caused a profound excitement among the 
Parisian public. Not less than twenty thousand persons, who were kept 
at a distance from the scene, surrounded the square and hooted at the 
prisoner throughout the ceremony, shouting : 

" ' Death to the traitor ! ' ' Death to the Jews ! ' 

" Such days are bad for the people and bad for the Government, which 
is now being driven into making a cleaning away of persons prominent in 
journalistic and political circles, who are suspected simply because of the 
race to which they are supposed to belong. 

" ' Casimir wants to clean up,' is a favorite expression just now among 
those who belong to the 'entourage' of the President of the French Eepub- 

"Public opinion is passionately worked up over the Dreyfus case. 
Here is some information in regard to it which comes to me from a very 
good source. There is no doubt as to the prisoner's guilt. His arrest 
was decided on the unanimous vote of the eleven ministers, who at the 
same time pledged themselves not to reveal anything contained in the 
report demanding the prosecution of Dreyfus, which was signed by Gen- 
eral Mercier, Minister of War; General de Boisdeffre, Chief of the General 
Staff, and General Gonse, the Assistant Chief of the General Staff. 

"The secrets betrayed by Dreyfus are of such importance that the 
Government will ask the chamber to pass a law providing for the impris- 
onment of Dreyfus, not at Noumea, from which an escape is possible, but 
on an island of French Guiana, where he will be strictly watched. 

" It is believed that Dreyfus was the centre of the German espionage 
system in France, and it is asserted that no less than twenty-seven attempts 
were made by German diplomacy, both at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
and at the Ministry of the Interior, to get the affair hushed up. 

" These facts, which I have upon the best authority, force me, in spite 
of the way in which Dreyfus faced the ordeal, to believe in his guilt." 


Chapter X. 

In order that the situation in France at the time of the first Dreyfus 
court-martial may be more clearly understood, it is necessary to refer to 
the corruption existing in the French press, and particularly to the famous 
"Syndicate of Silence." 

No sooner was the news of the arrest of Dreyfus made public than 
Madame Dreyfus, a wealthy woman in her own right, was besieged by 
representatives of certain of the Paris newspapers with offers to "give 
publicity to anything she might wish to publish regarding the arrest of 
her husband," etc., etc., not on the honest basis of the American press, 
which would print free anything a woman so unfortunate might be willing 
to say, but — for a consideration. Distracted with grief, Madame Dreyfus 
is said to have disbursed a large amount of money, in sums varying from 
one hundred to one thousand francs, to the first dozen or so of these jour- 
nalistic vultures. But her eyes were opened to the true state of affairs 
by her friends. 

At about this time, M. Henri Rochefort, editor of the Intransigeant, 
referred to France, his native land, as the "Pays de Chantage" otherwise 
the "Land of Blackmail." M. Eochefort claimed that blackmail was not 
only a prominent characteristic of the modern press of France, but that it 
was the strongest weapon of the Government of that day (1894-95). He 
added : 

"Since the time when the lists of Arton and Eeinach (the Panama 
lobbyists) were made public, the reactionary government of the country 
has obtained all its concessions from the Chamber of Deputies merely by 
the terror of divulgation." 

That there may have been truth in this assertion would seem likely 
from the exposure in December, 1894, of the "Syndicate of Silence." It 
appears that Allez Brothers, a well-known hardware firm of Paris, con- 
tracted early in December of that year to supply the minister of war with 


a number of water-cans for the use of the army. Later, the firm sublet 
the contract to another house, and when the cans were delivered the inspec- 
tor of the War Department refused to accept them, as being too light and 
made of inferior metal. The cans were offered again by Allez Brothers, 
whereupon the inspector discovered that false bottoms had been put in the 
cans in order to bring them up to the required weight, and he again 
refused them. Allez Brothers were informed by the Minister of War, 
General Mercier, that they would be prosecuted, and the story got into 
the public press. But, in some manner not clearly explained, seven Paris 
newspaper men formed a " Syndicate of Silence." The object of the organ- 
ization was to prevent the newspapers of Paris from publishing references 
to the alleged fraud due to the action of Allez Brothers. The head of 
that firm is said to have been visited by the head of the " Syndicate of 
Silence," who is reported to have said to him: 

"If you will hand over to me 100,000 francs (S20,000) I will 
guarantee the silence of the Paris press upon this little matter of the 
water-can contract. I will undertake to organize a press campaign in 
favor of the house of Allez Brothers. Further, a certain number of 
deputies shall be influenced in such a way as to force the Minister of War 
to accept the false-bottomed cans already tendered, and if General Mercier 
should show himself at all obstinate he will be politely requested to resign 
his portfolio." 

Still, according to the story, Allez Brothers jumped at the offer and 
paid this large sum demanded without much protest, and the head of the 
syndicate, it is asserted, handed $2,500 to each of his associates and kept 
$5,000 for himself. 

But, the next day, Allez Brothers discovered that many of the Paris 
newspapers continued to demand the prosecution of the firm. In fact, it 
became apparent that only seven out of the forty or fifty newspapers had 
been "silenced," whereupon the firm complained to the Minister of War 
and insisted upon the prosecution of the blackmailers. 

General Mercier, it seems, decided to proceed against the seven mem- 
bers of the "Syndicate of Silence," and even began to take steps in that 
direction, when, it was pointed out at the time, a Higher Power in the 
State intervened, explaining to the general that it would be " unwise, at 
this moment, to raise another Panama scandal." 


"Call upon the seven to refund the one hundred thousand francs," the 
Higher Power is alleged to have said, " and let the matter drop, so far as 
the Government is concerned." 

This, it is added, was done, and six of the members of the " Syndicate 
of Silence " took their $2,500 share to their chief, but they were dum- 
founded when the latter told them he had spent his $5,000 in paying his 
debts, and that in order to settle the matter they would have to contribute 
that amount from their own pockets in order to make up the 100,000 
francs ; and this was done also ! 

Some of the papers insisted that an inquiry should be made into the 
matter, and it seems at least one of the seven conspirators was himself 
asked to sit in judgment upon the affair, while the man appointed presi- 
dent of the committee of inquiry was described as occupying a prominent 
position upon a Paris newspaper which was inscribed upon the Panama 
Canal lobbying list as having received 1,500,000 francs. As the com- 
mittee had no power to investigate or authority to search for evidence 
against the guilty parti-^s, those in possession of the facts refused to appear 
before the tribunal. 

Finally, it is charged that the committee was purposely constructed so 
as to frustrate the object it was intended to accomplish ; and the inquiry 
ef course collapsed. 



Chapter XI, 


Shoetly after his degradation, Dreyfus was taken to the fortress of 
lie de T\.6, off the coast of France, preparatory to being shipped to the 
Erench penal settlement of Cayenne, French Guiana, off which place lay 
the lies du Salut (Salvation Islands), of which lie du Diable (Devil's 
Island), which was to be his permanent prison, formed a part. 

Thus, for four years, disappeared from view the degraded officer, the 
man denounced as a traitor from one end of France to the other, but be- 
loved and believed in by those who knew him best. 

Before he was put on board the ship which took him to Devil's Island, 
Dreyfus was allowed to have a probably last interview with his faithful 
wife. In this interview he broke down and talked of suicide. But the 
noble woman arose to the occasion and pointed him out the path of duty. 
She told him that, for the sake of his children and for her sake, as well as 
for the sake of his loyal friends, he must put up with everything and trust 
to them to prove his innocence in due course of time. 

Just before leaving France Dreyfus wrote a letter to his wife which 
contained the following words : 

" In promising you to live, to keep firm until my name is rehabilitated, 
I have made you the greatest sacrifice that a man of feeling — a man of 
honor — from whom they have torn his honor, can make. Provided only 
that God help me, that my physical strength does not leave me. The 
will is there, and my conscience, which reproaches me with nothing, bears 
me up. So, then, my darling, do all in the world you can to find the true 
culprit; never relax your efforts for a moment. It is my only hope." 

Madame Dreyfus was faithful to her husband's solemn charge. From 
that time on she devoted herself to the rehabilitation of her husband. The 
brothers of Dreyfus and her relatives spared no trouble and no money in 
seeking for enlightenment. The brothers freely offered their whole fortune 


in the efforts made, and a systematic campaign was opened in behalf of 
the prisoner. Madame Dreyfus made superhuman efforts to touch the 
hearts of the great army chiefs, but they were obdurate, saying they were 
firmly convinced of the guilt of the prisoner. In fact, the War Office 
authorities seemed to think they had done a very clever piece of work, and 
Du Paty de Clam was promoted for his share in the affair. 

Dreyfus, on his way to his island prison, was treated with the greatest 
harshness and contempt. Nobody has any sympathy or respect for a 
traitor; and Frenchmen less than any other people. He arrived at his 
destination, however, in fairly good health, though much depressed in 
spirits and still vainly protesting his innocence. 

In this manner two years passed, and this gives us an opportunity to 
glance at the Salvation Islands. 

The Salvation Islands comprise three small islands off the coast of 
French Guiana, a few degrees north of the equator, and, except by a 
narrow sea frontage, is covered with tropical forests. The climate is simply 
murderous, certain death being the result of standing bareheaded in the 
sun even for a short time. From November to June is the wet season, 
during which the average rainfall is 180 inches; yet the temperature is 
never less than 85°, and rises to 115° during the four dry months. Con- 
vict ships bound for these " Islands of the Cursed " generally sail either 
from the lie de 116, in the Bay of Biscay, or the lie d'Aix, in the Medi- 
terranean. A month is occupied by the voyage, the horrors of which are 
a fit prelude to those yet to come. 

Dressed in their convict garb, the prisoners are confined in batches of 
fifty in great iron cages on the spar deck. Benches are placed around 
the sides of the cage, and hammocks are slung at night. But day and 
night they are watched by guards standing beside loaded mitrailleuses, 
(rapid-firing guns), ready to fire at the first sign of mutiny. Sometimes, 
indeed, such outbreaks do occur; but they are invariably quelled with 
remorseless severity. The horrors of the passage are too repulsive for 
description, the scenes resembling rather those observable a century or 
two ago than what one would expect in the present times. 

On the arrival of the prisoners at the lies du Salut they are taken to 
the "camp," a clearing occupied by strongly built iron-barred huts, fur- 
nished with double rows of hammocks. But at night the fetid atmosphere 


withm, combined with the noisome vapors of the outer air and the ever- 
present swarms of stinging insects, render any but the sleep of exhaustion 
impossible. From the moment of his arrival the convict has no name. 
He is known only by the number of his hammock. The new arrivals are 
put to the most severe tasks — draining marshes and clearing ground — "to 
break their spirits." They are conducted to their work by armed guards, 
who are ordered to fire at the least attempt at flight. Hardly any try to 
escape, for they know that, if they evade the bullets of the guards and 
their pursuit, it will be necessary to traverse the virgin forest and the sea. 
At every step will lie in wait of them death by hunger, by fatigue, by 
disease, or by the poisoned arrows of the natives, who receive a reward 
for every convict they bring back, dead or alive. Meanwhile, with their 
bodies broken by their awful toil in a climate where a walk of a hundred 
yards is a formidable task, they labor in the blazing sun with spades and 
picks. About their heads hang clouds of stinging insects. Great red 
ants cover their bare legs, and sometimes poisonous serpents twist about 
their ankles and inflict mortal wounds. They stand in trenches up to 
their knees in water and mire, and the exhalations rising from the earth 
consume them with feve-r, or set their teeth chattering as with cold, while 
the sweat rolls from their foreheads. 

Occasionally, in their despair, some of the convicts revolt, in the 
hope, which is seldom disappointed, of finding in the bullets of their cus- 
todians a relief from this living torture. Others again go mad, or end 
their lives by deliberately exposing themselves to the sun, while very 
few ever succeed in escaping. Indeed, only once have any fugitives 
reached civilized countries again, and even then their period of freedom 
was comparatively brief. 



Chapter XII* 


Only a week previous to Dreyfus' s arrival his particular island (Dev- 
il's Island) was used as a hospital for lepers, all of whom, however, had 
been removed, and their huts burnt down. 

The island on which the man convicted of betraying his country was 
seemingly destined to pass the rest of his days is a very small one, shaded 
by a few cocoanut trees, and, small though it be, he was not allowed to set 
foot on more than a part of it, the only point from which he could by any 
possibility escape being prohibited to him. His modem hut, measuring 
four yards square, comprised but one room, in which a couple of guards 
were ever with the prisoner, who at night was shut in his den, which was 
constantly lighted up, a hole in the door enabling the watchman to keep 
an eye on his every movement. 

With regard to food Dreyfus was treated at first, it appears, in the 
same way as French soldiers in the colonies, and on that score he had 
nothing to complain ©f. 


Naturally the view was a distant one ; for on the He du Diable (Dev- 
il's Island) no one debarks. But from either of the other islands — from 


the He St. Joseph, where the bulk of the convicts are confined, and where 
the executioner has his habitat, or from the He Eoyale, where the marines 
who constitute the garrison are quartered — the prisoner on the interme- 
diate rock could be made out distinctly enough through an opera-glass, and 
the more readily that he alone was privileged to wear white clothes. The 
one white-clad figure, bearded now, and bent and listless, among the blue 
uniforms — that is surely he. 

Dreyfus's movements in 1896 were under less restraint than was at 
first the case. The length and breadth of the rock was his exercise dur- 
ing certain hours. He was master of his dreary time. He could employ 
it as he pleased, and he seemed to have mapped it out with the idea of 


getting through as much of it as possible. He read steadily and smoked 
as steadily, walked much, ate little, drank no stimulants, and slept seven 
hours out of the twenty-four. His health under this regime held out, 
perhaps, as well as could be expected against a climatic dispensation of 
tropical rain and torrid sun, by no means conducive to longevity. 

His literature was as ample as his friends could make it. He had 
books of all sorts, and periodicals by the bale, but never a newspaper. 
Yet somehow he heard of the Cauvin case, and laid considerable stress on 
that rehabilitation of an unjustly condemned man in one of the many 
memorials he addressed to the powers at home. 

The burden of all the prisoners was the same. Dreyfus admitted ap- 
pearances were against him, but he maintained that he was the victim of 
a ghastly judicial error. For fear of diplomatic complications, the court 
that tried him sat with closed doors; it was those closed doors, he 
averred, that shut out the truth. But the time, he never ceased to 
declare, was bound to come when his innocence would appear clear as the 
sun at noonday. And there was always the same calm assurance of this, 
and no heat, or anger, or acrimony. 

The prisoner's attitude was as disquieting as were his more passionate 
protests that January morning in the square of the Ecole Militaire. 

Certainly it disquieted M. Chautemps, Minister for the Colonies in 
the Eibot Cabinet. He was moved to wire to the governor of French 
Guiana to know if it were not possible for the prisoner to have his wife 
with him. But the governor had his own responsibility to consider, and 
opposed so formal a negative that M. Chautemps's efforts ended there. 

In a house opposite the prisoner's lived his bodyguard. It consisted 
of six picked ex-noncommissioned officers under a sergeant. The men 
were on duty two at a time for four-hour stretches, from dawn to dark. 
At dark one man entered a sort of cage in the prisoner's house, whence he 
commanded a view of the prisoner's bedroom. That man remained on 
duty all night and never sat down. 

One man took this watch every night for a whole year. He so nearly 
went mad over it that the system had to be altered, and afterward only 
one night watch for each guard per week was exacted. 

But, by night or by day, no matter what happened, no word could be 
addressed to the captive. 


The total cost of keepiug Dreyfus where he was may be put down at 
something like $10,000 a year. This included the cost of the periodical 
cablegram from Cayenne (which is in telephonic communication with the 
island) at $2.50 per word, to the Colonial Office, Paris, to inform the min- 
ister that "no change has taken place in the prisoner's situation." 


Chapter XIII, 

Dk. Vetjgmon, the physician who had Dreyfus in charge while the 
prisoner was on Devil's Island, in an interview at Cayenne, in March of 
the year 1899, said: 

"Dreyfus is a neuropathic subject, and the regime to which he has 
been submitted has made him more so; isolation, idleness, boredom, and 
discouragement irritate his nervous system. His malady displayed itself 
about a year after his imprisonment had commenced, and took the form 
of cerebral depression. He was beset by unconquerable sadness; he 
clenched his teeth; he complained of dyspepsia, exhaustion, and prolonged 
insomnia, caused by moral preoccupations, more particularly by the ' fixed 
idea ' of disculpating himself from the charge of treason. Next came 
headaches and pains in the neck, and finally, last year, I was called in to 
treat him for fainting fits of considerable duration, which I put a stop to by 
subcutaneous injections of morphia. In my presence Dreyfus was always 

" Under his strength of will one could detect, however, stormy symp- 
toms, and his jailers said that often, when first awaking of a morning, he 
would break out into furious passion, bursting into tears, gesticulating 
like a madman, and shouting unintelligible words. These violent rages 
usually resulted in utter exhaustion and general torpor, and sometimes in 
syncope, when, of course, I was sent for. Unfortunately, I could only put 
him through an illusory sort of treatment, prescribing good nourishment, 
tonics, work in his little garden, and plenty of walking exercise, to fatigue 
his body and distract his mind. But the only palliative remedies for acute 
neurasthenia — which I consider incurable — are bracing air, amusement, 
active life — a treatment, in short, not to be dreamed of in his case. 

" The irritability of Dreyfus's character has increased since he has been 
told of the application to revise his trial. This proceeding haunts him ; 


he is a prey to feverish restlessness ; a thousand conjectures torment his 
fancy, ignorant as he is of the evidence advanced by his defenders to ob- 
tain a new triaL" 

"Do you believe," the doctor was asked, "that if the application for 
revision be rejected, Dreyfus is strong enough to get over his disappoint- 

Dr. Veugnon smiled, hesitated, and then replied : 

"I think we had better not consider such an eventuality. Dreyfus 
has repeatedly expressed his intention to put an end to his life. His 
words have been reported to the authorities, and even M. Deniel, fearing 
an attempt at suicide, has ordered Dreyfus's jailers not to lose sight of 
him for a second. After carefully searching his habitation they carried 
off even perfectly harmless objects, such as kitchen utensils." 

" Was Dreyfus in earnest ? " 

"I can mention a characteristic circumstance which took place early 
in 1898, and justified the belief that he meant what he had said. He 
sent for me one day, complaining of violent headache, and besought me 
to give him a quantity of antipyrin, the only drug, he said, that gave 
him relief. Struck by a sudden suspicion, I acquiesced in his request, 
but, observing that a portable medicine case did not contain what he 
wanted, I left him, and soon returned with a dozen perfectly harmless 
cachets. These I recommended him to use very cautiously, not more 
than two per diem. Next day I visited him again. His headache had 
disappeared, and when I asked him to give back the balance of the 
cachets I had handed to him, he pretended to look for them, and pres- 
ently told me that he could not remember where he had put them. I 
dropped the subject, and never thereafter even alluded to the incident, 
which I consider conclusive. My instructions were to converse with him 
exclusively about his health, and he never mentioned the offence he was 
expiating except to protest his innocence. 

" At the present time I do not think that Dreyfus will try to kill him- 
self, for the possibility of 'revision ' has shed a ray of hope upon his 
tortured soul. But should he be disappointed, and hurled back into a 
slough of despond, I should not be surprised were he to carry out his 
sinister projects and commit an act of desperation." 

The head keeper of the Cayenne penal settlement, at about the same 


time, was questioned confidentially as to whether Dreyfus knew of the* 
efforts being made in France. He said : 

" I can positively assert that Dreyfus is ignorant of what has taken 
place in France since his incarceration, except what has been written to 
him by members of his family, for every imaginable measure has been 
taken to preclude indiscretion. Before his arrival here it had been 
arranged to isolate him completely and cut him off from all external com- 
munication. It may be said with truth that a tomb closed upon him as 
soon as he came hither. In the bureaux a special service was organized 
under the control of a chief inspector to supervise his food and all his 
appurtenances, of which he himself drew up a list that was handed to a 
Cayenne storekeeper. They were all minutely examined before being for- 
warded to the island. All the clothes sent to Dreyfus are unsewn and 
turned inside out to make sure that no written matter is hidden under the 
seams or in the lining. His provisions are rigorously searched ; meat cans 
and other tins are opened and resoldered ; his cigars — he smokes a good 
deal — are unrolled and made up again, as they might contain slips of 
paper. Even the labels on the wine bottles are removed to make certain 
that nothing is written on them. His letters are read ; whatever allusion 
they contain to his case is pitilessly suppressed, and before delivery to 
him they are subjected to great heat, in order to detect any sympathetic 
or other special ink. 

"If you take into consideration that Dreyfus is in the custody of 
incorruptible warders, always in fear of dismissal and punishment at the 
least infraction of standing rules, you will recognize, as I do, the impos- 
sibility that outside rumors should ever reach the former captain. It is 
not so in the penitentiary, where the convicts enjoy relative freedom; but 
the situation of Dreyfus and of these common malefactors has absolutely 
nothing in common." 


Chapter XIV. 

Dreyfus, while in the prison of Cherche Midi, the prison of La Sant^, 
on the lie de Ee, and on Devil's Island, wrote a number of touching let- 
ters to his wife which were afterward published by Harper & Brothers. 
Therefore we shall only touch upon them briefly, referring more particu- 
larly to the letters written from Devil's Island, as they furnish links in 
the chain which we now attempt to construct. The following is one of 
the letters referred to : 

Tuesday, March 12, 1895. 
My Dear Lucie : 

Thursday, February 21st, some hours after your departure, 1 was taken 
to Rochefort and put on shipboard. 

1 shall not speak to you of my voyage ; I was transported in the man- 
ner in which the vile scoundrel whom I represent deserved to be trans- 
ported. It was only just. They could not accord any pity to a traitor, 
the lowest of blackguards ; and as long as I represent this wretch I can 
only approve their conduct. 

My life here must drag itself out under the same conditions. 

But your heart can tell you aU that I have suffered — all that I suffer. 
I live only through the hope in my soul of soon seeing the triumphant 
light of my rehabilitation. That is the only thing that gives me strength 
to live. Without honor a man is not worthy of life. 

On the day of my departure you assured me that the truth would 
surely come soon to light. I have lived during that awful voyage, I am 
living now, only on that word of yours — remember it well. I have been 
disembarked but a few minutes, and I have obtained permission to send 
you a cablegram. 

I write in haste these few words, which will leave on the 15th by the 
English mail. It solaces me to have a talk with you, whom I love so 
profoundly. There are two mails a month for France — the loth the Eng- 
lish, and the 3d the French mail. 


And in the same way there are two mails a month for the lies — the 
English mail and the French mail. Find out the days of their departure 
and write to me by both of them. 

All that I can tell you more is that if you want me to live, have my 
honor given back to me. Convictions, whatever they may be, do noth- 
ing for me; do not change my lot. What is necessary is a decision 
which will reinstate me. 

I made for your sake the greatest sacrifice a man can make, in resign- 
ing myself to live after my tragic fate was decided. I did this because 
you had inculcated in me the conviction that the truth must always 
come to light. In your turn, my darling, do all that is humanly possible 
to discover the truth. A wife and a mother yourself, try to move the 
hearts of wives and mothers, so that they may give to you the key of this 
dreadful mystery. I must have my honor if you want me to live. I 
must have it for our dear children. Do not reason with your heart; that 
does no good. I have been convicted. Nothing can be changed in our 
tragic situation until the decision shall have been reversed. Eeflect, 
then, and pursue the solution of this enigma. That will be worth more 
than coming here to share my horrible life. It will be the best, the only 
means of saving my life. Say to yourself that it is a question of life or 
death for me, for our children. 

I am incapable of writing to you all. My brain will bear no more; 
my despair is too great. My nervous system is in a deplorable condition, 
and it is full time that this horrible tragedy should end. 

Now my spirit alone is above water. 

Oh, for God's sake, hurry, work with all your might! 

Tell them all to write to me. 

Embrace them all for me ; our poor darlings, too. 

And for you a thousand tender kisses from your devoted husband, ' 


March 28, 1895. 
I was hoping to receive news of you at about this time ; as yet I have 
heard nothing. I have already written you two letters. 

I know nothing as yet beyond the four walls of my chamber. As for 
my health, it could not be very brilliant. Aside from my physical mis- 
eries, of which I speak only to cite them, the cause of this condition of 
my health lies chiefly in the disorder of my nervous system, produced by 
an uninterrupted succession of moral shocks. 

You know that no matter how severe they might be at times, physical 


sufferings never wrung a groan from me, and that I could look death 
coolly in the face if only my mental sufferings did not darken my thoughts. 

My mind cannot extricate itself for an instant from the horrible drama 
of which I am the victim, a tragedy which has struck a blow not only at 
my life — that is the least of evils, and truly it would have been better had 
the wretch who committed the crime killed me instead of wounding me 
as he has — but [he struck] at my honor, the honor of my children, the 
honor of you all. 

This piercing thought of my honor torn from me leaves me no rest 
either by day or by night. My nights, alas ! you can imagine what they 
are ! Formerly it was only sleeplessness ; now the greater part of the night 
is passed in such a state of hallucination and of fever that I ask myself 
each morning how my brain still resists. This is one of the most cruel 
of all my sufferings. Add to this the long hours of the day passed in 
solitary communion with my thoughts, in the most absolute isolation. 

Is it possible to rise above such preoccupation of the mind? Is it 
possible to force the mind to turn aside to other subjects of thought? I 
do not believe it ; at least I cannot. When one is in this, the most agi- 
tating, the most tragic plight that can possibly be conceived for a man 
whose honor has never failed him, nothing can turn the mind from the 
idea which dominates it. 

Then when I think of you, of our dear children, my grief is unuttera- 
ble; for the weight of the crime which some wretch has committed 
weighs heavily upon you also. You must, therefore, for our children's 
sake, pursue without truce, without rest, the work you have undertaken, 
and you must make my innocence burst forth in such a way that no doubt 
can be left in the mind of any human being. Whoever may be the per- 
sons who are convinced of my innocence, tell yourself that they will 
change nothing in our position ; we often pay ourselves in words and nour- 
ish ourselves on illusions ; nothing but my rehabilitation can save us. 

You see, then, what I cannot cease reiterating to you, that it is a mat- 
ter of life or of death, not only for me, but for our children. Tor myself 
I never will accept life without my honor. To say that an innocent man 
ought to live, that he always can live, is a commonplace whose triteness 
drives me to despair. 

I used to say it and I used to believe it. Now that I have suffered 
all this myself, I declare that if a man has any spirit he cannot live under 
such circumstances. Life is admissible only when he can lift his head 
and look the world in the face ; otherwise, there is nothing left for him 
but to die. To live for the sake of living is simply low and cowardly. 


I am sure that ia this you think as I do; any other opinion would be 
unworthy of us. 

The situation, already so tragic, becomes each day more tense. You 
have not to weep, not to groan, but to face it with all your energy and 
with all your soul. To make clear this situation, we must not wait for a 
happy chance, but we much display all-absorbing activity. Knock at all 
doors. We must employ all m^eans to make the light burst forth. All 
forms of investigation must be tried ; the object we have in view is my 
life, the life of every one of us. 

Here is a very clear bulletin of my state, moral and physical. I will 
sum it up : 

A pitiable nervous and cerebral excitability, but extreme moral energy, 
outstretched toward the one object which, no matter what the price, no 
matter by what means, we must attain — vindication. I will leave you to 
judge from this what struggles I am each day forced to make to keep my- 
self from choosing death rather than this slow agony in every fibre of my 
being, rather than this torture of every instinct, in which physical suffering 
is added to agony of soul. You see that I am holding to my promise that 
I made you to struggle to live until the day of my rehabilitation. It remains 
for you to do the rest, if you would have me reach that day. 

Then away with weakness. Tell yourself that I am suffering martyr- 
dom, that each day my brain is growing weaker; tell yourself that it is a 
question of my honor — that is to say, of my life, of the honor of your chil- 
dren. Let these thoughts inspire you, and then act accordingly. 

Embrace every one, the children, for me. 

A thousand kisses from your husband, who loves you, 


How are the children? Give me news of them. I cannot think @f 
you and of them without throbs of pain through my whole being. I 
would breathe into your soul all the fire that is in my own, to march for- 
ward to the assault that is to liberate the truth. I would convince you 
of the absolute i>ecessity of unmasking the one who is guilty by every 
means, whatever it may be, and above all without delay. 

Send me a few books. 


Chapter XV. 

Having given our readers some idea of the manner in which Dreyfus 
wrote to his wife, we shall now submit a few extracts from other letters 
of the prisoner to Madame Dreyfus, so as to convey as far as possible, a 
pen picture of the workings of his mind while on Devil's Island. 

In a letter date May 8, 1895, Dreyfus wrote : 

A profound silence reigns around me, interrupted only by the roaring 
of the sea; and my thoughts, crossing the distance which separates us, 
carry me to your midst, among all those who are dear to me, whose 
thoughts must of a truth be often turned toward me. Often I ask at such 
an hour, " What is my dear Lucie doing ? " and I send you by my thoughts 
the echo of my immense affection. Then I close my eyes, and it seems 
to me that I see your face and the faces of my dear children. 

For three months now I have been without news of you, of the chil- 
dren, of our families. 

I believe that I have already told you that I advised you to ask per- 
mission to leave your letters at the Ministry eight or ten days before the 
departure of the mails ; perhaps in that way I shall receive them sooner. 
But, my good darling, forget all my sufferings, overcome your own, and 
think of our children. Say to yourself that you have a sacred mission to 
fulfil, that of having my honor given back to me, the honor of the name 
borne by our dear little ones. Moreover, I recall to my mind what you 
told me before my departure. I know, as you repeated to me in your 
letter of February 17th, what the words of your mouth are worth. I have 
an absolute confidence in you. 

Then do not weep any more, my good darling ; I will struggle until 
the last minute for you, for our dear children. 

The body may give way under such a burden of grief, but the soul 
should remain firm and valiant, to protest against a lot that we have not 
deserved. When my honor is given back to me, then only, my good darl- 
ing, we shall have the right to withdraw from the field. We will live 


for each other, far from the noise of the world ; we will take refuge in out 
mutual affection, in our love, grown still stronger in these tragical events. 
We will sustain each other, that we may bind up the wounds of our 
hearts; we will live in our children, to whom we will consecrate the 
remainder of our days. We will try to make them good, simple beings, 
strong in body and mind. We will elevate their souls so that they may 
always find in them a refuge from the realities of life. 

May this day come soon, for we have all paid our tribute of sufferings 
upon this earth! Courage, then, my darling; be strong and valiant; carry 
on your work without weakness, with dignity, but with the conviction of 
your rights. I am going to lie down, to close my eyes and think of you. 
Good night and a thousand kisses. 

On May 18, 1895, Dreyfus wrote as follows to his son; 

.Deab Little Pierre : 

Papa sends good big kisses to you, also to little Jeanne. Papa thinks 
often of both of you. You must show little Jeanne how to make beauti- 
ful towers with the wooden blocks, very high, such as I made for you, 
and which toppled down so well. Be very good. Give good caresses to 
your mamma when she is sorrowful. Be very gentle and kind also to 
grandmother and grandfather. Set good little traps for your aunts. 
When papa comes back from his journey you will come to the railway 
station to meet him, with little Jeanne, with mamma, with every one. 

More good big kisses for you and for Jeanne. Your 


Here is another touching extract from a letter of Dreyfus to his wife : 

I do not know anything of what is passing around me. I live as in a 
tomb. I am incapable of deciphering in my brain this appalling enigma. 
All that I can do, then, and I shall not fail in this duty, is to sustain 
you to my last breath — is to continue to fan in your heart the flame which 
glows in mine, so that you may march straight forward to the conquest of 
the truth, so that you may get me back my honor, the honor of my chil- 
dren. You remember those lines of Shakespeare, in "Othello.* I found 
them again not long since among my English books, I send them to you 
translated (you will know why ! ) 

"Celui qui me vole ma bourse, 
Me vole une bagatelle. 
C'est quelque chose, mais ce n'est rien. 

1. 'M. Scheurer-Kestner, vice-president of the Senate. — 2. IM. Ranc, senator for the Seine. — 
3. General Billot, War Minister. — 4. M. Darlan, Minister for Justice. — 5. M. de Castro, who 
was the first to assert that the bordereau was written by IMajor Esterhazy. — 6.. Maitre Leblois, 
counsel for Lieutenant-Colonel Piccjuart. — 7. Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. — 8. Colond 
Panizzardi, Italian military attach^ in Paris. — 0. M. Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of Alfred 
Dreyfu.s. — 10. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. — 11. Colonel Schwartzkoppen, German military 
attach^ in Paris. — 12. M. Henri Rochefort, director of the Intransigeant. — 13. M. Castelin, 
deputy for the Aisne. — 14, 15, 16, and 17, MM. Gobert, Pelletier, Charavay, and Cr^pieux- 
Jamin, handwriting experts. 

1. Zola. 2. Clemenceau. 

3. Mercier. 4. Carriere. 


1. M. Cochefeit, Chief of the Secret Service. 

2. Major Da Paty de Clam dictating Trial Passages of the Bordereau to Captain Dreyfus. 

before his arrest. 


1. Dreyfus before the Court, 

2. Readino; the Verdict. 

3. Maurel-Pries. 

4. Maitre Demange. 



Elle etait a moi, elle est k lui et 

A etait I'esclave de mille antres. 
Mais celui que me vole ma bonne renommee, 
Me vole une chose que ni Penrichit pas, 

Et que me rend vraiment pauvre." 

Ah, yes! he has rendered me "vraiment pauvre," the •wretch who has 
stolen my honor! He has made us more miserable than the meanest of 
human creatures. 

The quoted verses are a rendering of — 

" Who steals my purse steals trash ; . . . 
But he who filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him, 
And makes me poor indeed." 

Under date of June 16, 1895, the unhappy prisoner wrote: 

To-day a more peculiarly intimate sadness invades my soul, because 
on this day, Sunday, we used to be together all day, and we used to end it 
with your dear parents. But my heart, my conscience, and my reason, 
too, tell me that these happy days will return to us. I cannot admit that 
an innocent man can be left to expiate indefinitely, for a guilty wretch, 
a crime as abominable as it is odious ; and then, to sum it up in one word, 
what must give you, as it gives me, unconquerable energy, is the thought 
of our children, as I have already told you before ; for ideas which emanate 
from such a subject must, from their nature, repeat themselves. We must 
have our honor, and we have not the right to be weak; without it, it 
would be better to see our children die. 

As for our sufferings, we all suffer alike. Do you think that I do not 
feel what you suffer — you, who are struck dodbly, in your honor and in 
your love? Do you believe that I do not feel how your parents suffer, 
your brothers and your sisters, for whom honor is not an empty word? 
But I hope that our anguish is to have an end, and that that end is near. 
Until that day we must guard all our courage, all our energy. 

Thank Mathieu for those few words he wrote to me. How the poor 
boy must suffer; he who is honor incarnate ! But tell him that I am with 
him in thought — that our two hearts suffer together. There are moments 
when I think that I am the plaything of a horrible nightmare; that all 
this is unreal; that it is only a bad dream; but it is, alas! the truth. 
But for the moment we ought to put aside every weakening thought. We 
ought to fix our eyes upon one single object ; our honor. When that is 
returned to me, and when I know the meaning of what is now for me an 


unsolvable problem, perhaps I shall understand this enigma which baffles 
my reason, which leaves my brain panting. 

I will wait, then, for that moment, sure that it will come. I wish for 
us all that it may come soon ; I even hope it, so immovable is my faith in 
justice. Mystery has no place in our century. Everything is brought to 
light, and must be brought to light. 

My Sunday has seemed less long to me, my dear Lucie, because in this 
way I have been able to talk with you. As for our children, I have no 
advice to give you. I know you; our ideas on this subject are alike, both 
in regard to their bringing up and in regard to their education. Courage 
always, dear Lucie, and a thousand kisses. 

Do not forget that I am answering letters dated three months ago, and 
that my replies may therefore seem out of date to you. 


On July 15, 1895, Dreyfus wrote: 

My energy is occupied in stilling the beatings of my heart, in contain- 
ing my impatience, to learn at last that my innocence is recognized every- 
where and by every one. But if my energy is altogether passive, yours 
ought, on the contrary, to be all active and animated by the ardent spirit 
which gives strength to my own. 

If it were merely a question of suffering it would be nothing. But it 
is a question of the honor of a name, of the life of our children, and I do 
not wish, you understand, that our children should ever have to lower 
their heads. Light, full, complete, must be let in upon this tragic story. 
Nothing, therefore, should rebuff or tire you. All doors open, all hearts 
beat for a mother who begs only for the truth, so that her children may 

It is almost from the tomb — my situation here is comparable to that, 
with the added grief that my heart still beats — that I write these words 
to you. Thank your dear parents, our brothers and sisters, as well as 
Lucie and Henri, for their good and affectionate letters. Tell them all the 
pleasure which I take in reading them, and tell them that if I do not an- 
swer directly it is because I could do nothing but keep on repeating what 
I have already said. Kiss your dear parents for me; tell them all my 
affection. Long, tender kisses for the children. As for you, my dear and 
good Lucie, your letters are my daily reading. Continue to write me long 
letters ; with them I come nearer to living with you, with our dear chil- 
dren, than I could by my own thought alone, which, indeed, never leaves 
you for an instant. 


The prisoner, on September 7, 1S95, wrote: 

Should it last much longer either one or the other will give way under 
it. Well, my dear Lucie, that must not be ! We must before all else get 
back our honor, the honor of our children. We must not allow ourselves 
to be overcome by a fate so infamous when it is so unmerited. However 
natural, however legitimate, may be the cries of pain of souls who suffer 
far beyond all imaginable suffering, to groan, my dear Lucie, will do no 
good. If, when you receive this letter, the mystery has not been made 
clear, then, I think, it will be time, when the courage, the energy which 
duty gives, with the invincible force which innocence gives, for you to 
take personal steps, so that at last light may be thrown upon this tragic 
story. You have neither mercy nor favor to ask for, but only a deter- 
mined search for the truth, a search for the wretch who wrote that infa- 
mous letter, and, in one word, justice for us all! And you will find in 
your own heart words more eloquent than any that could be contained in 
a mere letter. We must, in a word, find at last the key to this mystery. 
Whatever may be the means, your position as a wife and a mother gives 
you every right, and should give you every courage. 

From what I myself feel, from the state of my own heart, I know but 
too well how it must be with you all, and in my long nights I see you 
suffering, agonizing with me. 

It must end. Men cannot, in a century like ours, leave two families 
in agony without clearing up a mystery like this. The truth can be made 
known, if only they are willing to have it so. 

In the course of a long letter dated May 22d, Dreyfus said: 

It is from the thought of you, the thought of our dear children, from 
my determined resolve to sustain you, to live to see the day when our 
honor shall be given back to us, that I draw all my strength. When I 
sink under the united burden of all my woes, when my brain reels, when 
my heart can bear no more, when I lose all hope, then to myself I mur- 
mur three names — yours, those of our dear children — and I nerve myself 
again against my agony, and not a sound passes my silent lips. To tell 
the truth, I am- physically very weak, it could not be otherwise. But 
everything is effaced from my mind, hallucinations of memories, sufferings, 
the atrocities of my daily life, before so exalted, so absolute a preoccupa- 
tion, the thought of our honor, the patrimony of our children. So I come 
again, as always, to cry to you with all my strength, with all my soul, 
" Courage, and still courage, to march steadfastly onward to your goal — 


the unciouded honor of our name" — and to wish for both our sakes that 
this goal may soon be reached. The dear little letters written by the chil- 
dren always move me deeply, cause me extreme emotion ; I often wet 
them with my tears, but I draw from them also my strength. In all my 
letters I read that you are raising these dear little children admirably. If 
I have never spoken of this to you it has been because I knew it, because 
I knew you. 

To speak of my love for you, the love that unites us all, would be 
useless, would it not? Still, let me tell you again that my thought never 
leaves you for an instant day or night, that my heart is always near to 
you, to our children, to you all, ready to sustain you, to animate you with 
my unconquerable will. I embrace you with all my strength, with all 
my heart, and also the dear children. 

Finally Dreyfus began to give way to despair. After addressing a 
heartrending appeal to the governor of French Guiana, in September, 
1898, no encouragement was forthcoming, and he broke down. But there 
was already sunshine in the distance, as the following letter shows : 

If my voice had ceased to make itself heard, this would have been be- 
cause it had forever died away. If I have lived, it has been for my honor, 
which is my property and the patrimony of our children ; it has been for 
my duty, which I have done everywhere and always ; and as it must ever 
be accomplished when a man has right and justice on his side, without 
fear of anything or of anybody. When one has behind one a past devoted 
to duty, a life devoted to honor, when one has never known but one lan- 
guage, that of truth, one is strong, I assure you, and atrocious though fate 
may have been, one must have a soul lofty enough to dominate it until it 
bows before one. Let us, therefore, await with confidence the decision of 
the Supreme Court, as we await with confidence the decision of the new 
judges before whom this decision will send me. At the same time as 
your letter I have received a copy of the petition for revision, and of the 
decree of the Court of Cassation, declaring it acceptable. I read with 
wonderful emotion the terms of your petition, in which you expressed 
admirably, as I have already done in mine, the feelings by which I am 
animated in asking that an end shall be put to the punishment of an inno- 
cent man — I may add to that of a noble woman, of her children, of two 
families, of an innocent man who had always been a loyal soldier, who 
has not ceased, even in the midst of the horrible sufferings of unmerited 
chastisement, to declare his love for his native land. 


Chapter XVL 


The Procureur-G^n^ral of Cayenne, M. Darius, on November 15, 1898, 
entered the hut occupied by Dreyfus on Devil's Island and said to him : 

"Dreyfus, the Court of Cassation has decided to revise your case. 
What have you to say ? " 

The prisoner was almost overwhelmed by the good news, it is admit- 
ted. But, according to the Procureur-G^n^ral, 4he prisoner cootented 
himself with replying: 

"I shall say nothing until I am confronted by my accusers in Paris." 

But, from a letter written by Dreyfus to his wife, later, in November, 
1898, he said: 

My Dear Lucie: 

In the middle of the month I was told that the petition for the revi- 
sion of my judgment had been declared acceptable by the Court of Cassa- 
tion, and was invited to produce my means of defence. I took the neces- 
sary measures immediately. My requests were at once transmitted to 
Paris, and you must have been informed of this some days ago. Events 
must therefore be moving rapidly. In thought I am night and day, as 
always, with you, with our children, with all, sharing our joy at seeing 
the end of this fearful drama approaching rapidly. Words become pow- 
erless to describe such deep emotions . . . According to information 
which I sent you in the last mail, all will be over in the course of Decem- 
ber. Therefore, when these lines reach you I shall be almost on the point 
of starting for France. 

We will conclude this series of extracts from the letters of Dreyfus with 
the letter received by his counsel, Maitr3 Demange, December 31, 1894, 
made public when sent to the Minister of Justice, M. Sarrien, July 11, 
1898, as showing the lines the prisoner indicated for those who were en- 
gaged in the work of attempting to establish his inriocence : 


Du Paty de Gam came to-day, Monday, December 31, 1894, at 5: 30 
P.M., after the rejection of my appeal, to ask me, on behalf of the minis- 
ter, whether I had not, perhaps, been the victim of my imprudence, 
whether I had not meant merely to lay a bait . . . and had then found 
myself caught fatally in the trap. I replied that I never had relations 
with any agent or attach^, . . . that I had undertaken no such process as 
baiting, and that I was innocent. He then said to me on his own respon- 
sibility that he was himself convinced of my guilt, first from an examina- 
tion of the handwriting of the document brought up against me, and from 
the nature of the documents enumerated therein ; secondly, from informa- 
tion according to which the disappearance of documents corresponded with 
my presence on the General Staff j that, finally, a secret agent had declared 
that a Dreyfus was a spy, . . . without, however, affirming that that 
Dreyfus was an officer. I asked Paty de Clam to be confronted with this 
agent. He replied that it was impossible. Paty de Clam acknowledged 
that I had never been suspected before the reception of the incriminating 

I then asked him why there had been no surveillance exercised over 
the officers from the month of February, since Commandant Henry had 
affirmed at the court-martial that he had been warned at that date that 
there was a traitor among the officers, Paty de Clam replied that he knew 
nothing about that business ; that it was not his affair, but Commandant 
Henry's ; that it was difficult to watch all the officers of the General Staff. 
.... Then, perceiving that he had said too much, he added : 

" We are talking between four walls. If I am questioned on all that 
I shall deny everything." 

I preserved entire calmness, for I wished to know his whole idea. 

To sum up, he said that I had been condemned because there was a 
clue indicating that the culprit was an officer, and the seized letter came 
to give precision to that clue. He added, also, that since my arrest the 
leakage at the ministry had ceased ; that perhaps . . .* had left the letter 
about expressly to sacrifice me, in order not to satisfy my demands. 

He then spoke to me of the remarkable expert testimony of M. Bertil- 
lon, according to which I had traced my own handwriting and that of my 

* The leaders indicate an omitted name. 


brother in order to be able, in case I should be arrested with the letter on 
me, to protest that it was a conspiracy against me. He further intimated 
that my wife and family were my accomplices — in short, the whole theory 
of M. Bertillon. 

At this point, knowing what I wanted to discover and not wishing to 
allow him to insult my family as well, I stopped him saying : 

" Enough ; I have only one word to say, namely, that I am innocent, 
and that your duty is to continue your inquiries." 

"If you are really innocent," he exclaimed, "you are undergoing the 
most monstrous martyrdom of all time. " 

"I am that martyr," I replied, "and I hope the future will prove it to 

To sum up, it results from this conversation : 

1. That there have been leakages at the ministry. 

2. That . . . must have heard, and must have repeated to Command- 
ant Henry, that there was an officer who was a traitor. I do not think he 
would have invented it of his own accord. 

3. That the incriminating letter was taken at . . . From all this I 
draw the following conclusions, the first certain, the two others possible : 

First, a spy really exists ... at the French ministry, for documents 
have disappeared. 

Secondly, perhaps that spy slipped in in an ofHcer's uniform, imitating 
his handwriting in order to divert suspicion. 

Thirdly [here four lines and a half are blank]. 

This hypothesis does not exclude the fact No. 1, which seems certain. 
But the tenor of the letter does not render this third hypothesis very prob- 
able. It would be connected rather with the first fact and the second hy- 
pothesis — that is to say, the presence of a spy at the ministry and imita- 
tion of my handwriting by that spy, or simply resemblance of handwriting. 

However this may be, it seems to me that if your agent is clever he 
should be able to unravel this web by laying his nets as well on the . . . 
side as on the . . . side. This will not prevent the employment of all 
the methods I have indicated, for the truth must be discovered. 

After the departure of Paty de Clam I wrote the following letter to the 

" I received, by order, the visit of Paty de Clam, to whom I once 


more declared that I was innocent, and that I had never even committed an 
imprudence. I am condemned. I have no favor to ask. But in the 
name of my honor, which I hope will one day he restored to me, it is my 
duty to beg you to continue your investigations. "When I am gone let 
the search be kept up ; it is the only favor that I solicit. " 


Chapter XVIL 

We must now leave Dreyfus on Devil's Island and turn back to the 
events which followed his degradation, January 5, 1895. 

For about two years little or nothing was heard of the case of the 
unhappy prisoner. But loyally, steadily, and fearlessly, his devoted wife, 
his brother Mathieu and others persisted in their efforts to get at fch( 

As for the War Office officials, they were quite pleased with the result 
of their efforts, so much so that some of those concerned, particularly Du 
Paty de Clam, were promoted. 

M. Meline was then Premier, M. Hanotaux was Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, M. Lebon was Minister of the Colonies, and the Minister of War 
was General Billot. Colonel Picquart was head of the Intelligence De- 

During the month of March, 1896, there came into the possession of 
Colonel Picquart, a fearless, intelligent, and apparently honest officer, a 
French post-card, ot jpetit bleu, torn into fragments (as was the case with 
the bordereau which brought about the conviction of Dreyfus), which, 
strange to say, had also been found by a spy who had investigated the 
contents of the waste-paper basket of the German Embassy at Paris. 

When pieced together, the 2^etit lieu read : 

"I await before everything a more detailed explanation than that 
which you gave me the other day upon the question at issue. I beg you, 
therefore, to give it to me in writing, so that I can judge if I may continue 
my relations with the firm of R or not." 

This post-card, {or petit hleu) was addressed to Major Esterhazy, 27 
Rue de la Bienfaisance, Paris, an infantry officer whose reputation was 
somewhat shady, to put it as mildly as possible. 

The f uU title oi Esterhazy was " Major Count Ferdinand von Walsy?^ 


Esterhazy." He claimed to be a direct descendant of the noble Esterhazy 
family of Austria, but the head of that house protested against this claim 
and even threatened to prosecute Major Esterhazy for bearing the name 
of the family. 

However, to continue our story, the interest of Colonel Picquart was 
aroused by the wording of the petit hleu, and he started an investigation of 
the matter. He obtained specimens of Esterhazy's handwriting, and, to 
the astonishment of the head of the Intelligence Department, he found 
on comparing the major's writing with that of the bordereau that Ester- 
hazy was seemingly the author of the document which had sent Dreyfus 
to Devil's Island. A sample of Esterhazy's handwriting was submitted 
to M. Bertillon, the head of the Anthropometric Department of the Paris 
Prefecture of Police, who had previously, in 1894, identified the hand- 
writing of Dreyfus as being that of the author of the bordereau, and at this 
time he pronounced Esterhazy's writing to be that of the author of the 

Further investigation convinced Colonel Picquart that Esterhazy and 
not Dreyfus was the writer of the bordereau, and Picquart appealed to 
General Gonse, Deputy Chief of the Headquarters Staff, and to General 
de Boisdeffre, Chief of the Headquarters Staff, urging immediate action. 
The generals consulted, and, instead of promptly taking steps to establish, 
if possible, the innocence of Dreyfus, they seem to have arrived at the con- 
clusion that the best thing to do was to hush the matter up, in order to 
■'protect the honor of the army," and save certain high personages from 
apparently well-merited condemnation. Therefore Gener-al Billot, the 
Minister of War, took no steps toward possibly clearing Dreyfus. But, 
on the contrary, he seems to have hampered the work of those who were 
moved to pity the prisoner and who urged the detection of the real traitor. 

In the case of two men in the War Office, Du Paty de Clam and Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel Henry, there was a feeling of consternation at the discovery 
of the resemblance of the handwritiug of Esterhazy to that of the bordereau. 

For a while this important discovery was kept secret, but the news 
eventually leaked out, and further inquiry into the Dreyfus affair was im- 
minent. Picquart became the champion of the prisoner of Devil's Island, 
and Du Paty de Clam and Henry, as persecutors of Dreyfus, were placed 
QH the defensive, with the result that the whole Headquarters Staff, and 


those of the Intelligence Department involved in the condemnation of 
Dreyfus, banded together to defend themselves by any means against the 
disgrace which threatened them. In this effort, it has since been shown, 
forgery and even murder were resorted to in order to heap up evidence 
against Dreyfus. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Henry was the leader of this gang of conspirators. 
At all hazards Picquart must be discredited, for the Minister of War was 
slowly being interested in the new developments. 

A press campaign, ostensibly against Picquart but really directed 
against Dreyfus, was opened in some of the newspapers of Paris. 

The Eclair, in September, 1896, printed an article setting forth that 
Dreyfus had really been convicted on documents which had been secretly 
communicated to the court-martial of 1894, and one of these documents 
was referred to as having actually mentioned Dreyfus by name — which has 
since been proved incorrect. This was the document known as " Cctte 

canaille de D " document, no name being given, but Dreyfus being 

inferred, though it has since been shown to have probably referred to a 
spy named Dubois. The first version printed was that the document con- 
tained the words : 

" Becidement cet animal de Dreyfus devient trop exigeant.'' ("Deci- 
dedly that animal Dreyfus is becoming too exacting.") 

The second version was that the document read : 

" Citte canaille de D "etc., etc. ("That rascal D " etc., etc.) 

Then facts about the secret dossier, or secret batch of papers used at 
the court-martial of 1894, began to appear in the papers and, indue course 
of time, M. Bernard Lazare was bold enough to publish a pamphlet in 
favor of Dreyfus. 

This was followed, November 10, 1896, by the publication in the 
Matin of a facsimile of the bordereau, or incriminating document, which 
the paper mentioned obtained from M. Teyssonieres, one of the three ex- 
perts in handwriting who testified at the Dreyfus court-martial. This 
inflamed public curiosity, and sides were formed for and against Dreyfus. 
Up to about that time, only the faithful few were believers in the inno- 
cence of the prisoner. From that time on people began to compare the 
handwriting for themselves, and the number of Dreyfus's friends increased. 

As the interest of the public in the case increased, Generals de Bois- 


deffre and Gonse continued to block the efforts made by Colonel Picquart 
in behalf of Dreyfus, representing to General Billot, the Minister of War, 
that Picquart had been in the habit of consulting a lawyer, named Leblois, 
about the secret papers in the case. This was a serious accusation, as it 
rendered Picquart open to the charge of communicating to a civilian secret 
documents belonging to the War Office. 

At the same time hints crept into the papers of a corruption fund of 
35,000,000 francs having been raised abroad for the war chest of those 
working in behalf of the prisoner, and it was intimated that a suspicious- 
looking American vessel had been sighted off Devil's Island. This caused 
the authorities to redouble their precautions ; the life of Dreyfus on his 
prison island was made more burdensome than ever; his exercise was re- 
stricted. A guard, pistol in hand, with orders to shoot the prisoner on 
the slightest evidence of an attempt to escape, was stationed in his room, 
and decoy letters were sent to the unhappy man in the hope of getting 
him to answer them, and thus, possibly, giving the authorities an excuse to 
shoot him. 

Finally, M. Castelin, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, repre- 
senting the district of Aisne, gave notice that he would interpellate the 
Government, on November 18, 1896, regarding the various Dreyfus rumors 
afloat and the action the Government was taking or contemplated taking in 
the case. 


Chapter XVIU. 

The announcement of an interpellation in the Chamber made the mil- 
itary authorities more and more anxious. Something had to be done. 
Lieutenant-Colonel Henry came to the rescue of his chiefs. As he after- 
ward admitted before committing suicide, Henry forged a note, in bad 
French, purporting to be from Major Panizzardi, the Italian military at- 
tach^, to Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the military attach^ of Germany. It 

My Deak Fkiend: 

I read that a deputy is going to interpellate upon Dreyfus. If . . . 
I shall say that I never had, relations with that Jew. That is agreed. If 
you are asked, say likewise, for no one must ever know what has passed 
with him. 

This forgery was shown to Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse, who, in 
turn, showed it to General Billot, but it was not shown to Colonel Pic- 
quart. The Minister of War, however, referred to the so-called Panizzar- 
di note in a conversation with Picquart, who immediately expressed doubts 
as to its authenticity. This did not have any weight with General Billot. 
He appeared in the Chamber of Deputies and, replying to the interpella- 
tion, said the Dreyfus court-martial was regularly composed, that the ap- 
peal was rejected unanimously, that the affair was a thing already passed 
upon by the court, otherwise a cJiose jugee, and that the state reasons 
which, in 1894, made it necessary to hear the case in secret still prevailed. 
This mysterious statement had weight with the deputies, who received the 
announcement with approval; and once more the military authorities 
breathed freely. 

The governments of Germany and Italy were not so easily satisfied. 
They entered protests against the authenticity of the documents, but their 


protests were not allowed to become public at that period, and General 
Billot congratulated himself upon having saved "the honor of the army." 

It now remained to get rid of Colonel Picquart, who was entirely too 
honest-minded for the position he held. Therefore it was arranged to 
send him away from Paris on various pretexts, termed "missions." First 
he was sent to Nancy, then to Besancon, next to Algiers, and finally to 
the frontier of Tunis, where he was given command of the Fourth Eegi- 
ment of Algerian sharpshooters. Besides this, it was proposed to send him 
on a " mission " into a district from which it is more than likely he would 
never have returned. But Colonel Picquart slipped out of the trap set for 
him, appealed to his immediate superior, placed the case plainly before 
him, met with some sympathy, did not go on the "mission, " and thereby, 
in all probability, saved his life ; for Picquart had no doubt it was intended 
to get rid of him by foul means or fair. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, having thus disposed of his rival Picquart, 
was promoted to his place as Chief of the Intelligence Department. The 
friends of Picquart could obtain no news of him ; his most private letters 
were opened at the War Office, and every effort was made to suppress him 

Picquart, in May, 1897, protested to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry against 
the mystery which was made to surround his whereabouts, and Henry 
replied in a threatening manner, saying the mystery was the result of Pic- 
quart's own action in opening letters and in attempting to prevail upon 
officers to give testimony as to a certain document being in the handwrit- 
ing of a person other than Dreyfus. There were other statements in the 
letter which so alarmed Colonel Picquart that he succeeded in obtaining 
leave of absence from his friendly general in Tunis, and went to Paris, 
where he placed the case before M. Leblois, his friend and lawyer. Pic- 
quart also placed in the lawyer's hands the threatening letter sent him by 
Henry, and letters which he had received from General Gonse, after which 
he returned to his post in Tunis. 

"With Picquart out of the way, the enemies of Dreyfus thought the 
proposed further inquiry into the case would be dropped. 

But they reckoned without faithful Madame Dreyfus, who was working 
incessantly for the prisoner of Devil's Island. The facts in the case, espe- 
cially the new developments, were placed before M. Scheurer-Kestner, an 


Alsatian countrymau of Dreyfus auJ one of the vice-presidents of the 
Senate. He became so impressed with the statements made to him that 
he soon developed into a champion of Dreyfus, and with Mathieu Drey- 
fus, a brother of the prisoner, he denounced Esterhazy as being the author 
of the bordereau. 

Affairs were now beginning to look much brighter for the prisoner, 
and the hope of his friends mounted still higher when M. I^raile Zola, the 
famous novelist and author of "Nana," joined the ranks of the Dreyfusards, 
or friends of the prisoner. 

M. Mathieu Dreyfus, in November, 1897, wrote to the Minister of 
War and squarely denounced Esterhazy as the author of the bordereau. 
He also firmly insisted that justice be done to his brother. In this matter, 
M. Mathieu Dreyfus acted on the advice of M. Scheurer-Kestner. 

There are various stories told as to how this vice-president of the 
Senate was converted from a believer in the guilt of Dreyfus into a staunch 
champion of the prisoner. One version is that, while at dinner one day, 
he expressed wonder at the fact that an officer holding such a high position 
as Dreyfus and being so well provided with the world's goods could have 
become a traitor, whereupon an officer who was present said the reason 
could be found in the fact that Dreyfus had purchased a house in Paris, 
for which he had agreed to pay 228,000 francs, and that he was in need 
of money. This officer also said he had this " fact " from one of the offi- 
cers who composed the Dreyfus court-martial. M. Scheurer-Kestner, it 
is further asserted, investigated this matter and found it to be absolutely 
false. He afterward met M. Leblois, Picquart's lawyer, who placed before 
the vice-president of the Senate all the letters whicli he had in his posses- 
sion in connection with the affair. Some time afterward M. Scheurer- 
Kestner railed upon the Minister of War and urged him to make inquiries 
in the matter, telling him of his own investigations, and saying he was 
convinced Dreyfus was innocent. This was in July, 1897. 

The next step was taken by the Figaro, probably the most influential 
paper in France, which came out boldly for a revision of the Dreyfus trial. 
M. Scheurer-Kestner then headed the campaign which was destined to 
end in a victory for the Dreyfusards, so far as obtaining a revision of the 
trial was concerned. 

In the mean while, Major Forzinetti, governor of the Cherche-Midi 


prison, where Dreyfus was confined after his arrest, was removed from 
active service and sent into the army reserve for declaring to M. Henri 
Eochefort, editor of the Intransigeant, his belief that Dreyfus was inno- 

The private apartments of Picquart were searched, and he was recalled 
from Tunis, in order to be examined by General Pellieux, who had been 
detailed by the Government to inquire into the charges so openly brought 
in the press and elsewhere against Esterhazy. The latter, driven to des- 
peration, was finally compelled to demand a trial by court-martial, which 
was accorded him. It took place in January, 1898, but, subsequent de- 
velopments show, he had previously been assured of protection from high 
quarters, as was the case when he fought a duel with Picquart, which, as 
is the case of most French duels, was not a very desperate affair. 

Before the court-martial Esterhazy was charged with having written 
the bordereau, and with having been in treasonable correspondence with 
Colonel von Schwartzkoppen. Esterhazy admitted that the handwriting 
of the bordereau was his own, but he claimed it was in the result of a 
tracing made by Dreyfus upon his (Esterhazy's) writing, which the pris- 
oner of Devil's Island afterward put together. The ^5f^!^Y Ucu, it was as- 
serted before the court, was a forgery perpetrated by Picquart. 

The statements made by Esterhazy were accepted by the court as 
accurate in every respect, and he was promptly acquitted, and left the 
court with his mistress. Mademoiselle Pays, on his arm. They received 
an ovation in the street, the crowds shouting: "Vive I'arm^e! " "Vive la 
France ! " "Down with the Jews ! " "Down with traitors ! " etc., etc., which 
must have made Esterhazy feel uncomfortable. 

The acquittal of Esterhazy was followed by the arrest and imprison- 
ment of Colonel Picquart, who was brought before a Military Court of 
Inquiry, where he was accused of showing and divulging documents con- 
nected with the national defence and other matters, to his lawyer, M. 
Leblois, and with showing the latter his correspondence with General 
Gonse. Only the latter charge was proved, and Picquart was dismissed 
from the army. 

This was a sad blow, apparently, to the friends of Dreyfus, and his 
enemies were correspondingly elated. 


Chapter XIX. 

It was at this stage of the campaign that Emile Zola came to the 
front. In January, 1898, the novelist caused to be published in the Aurore, 
a newspaper owned by a friend of liis, a series of formal accusations, ad- 
dressed to the President of the Republic, each beginning with " J'accuse," 
("I accuse,') against the courts-martial which had tried Esterhazy and 
Dreyfus. The object of Zola in making these accusations was to bring 
about his prosecution and thus cause light to be thrown upon the Dreyfus 

The Minister of War was compelled to prosecute M. Zola for these 
denunciations ; but, in order to prevent the reopening of the Dreyfus case, 
which was the object the novelist had in view, the minister confined his 
attention to the following paragraph : 

"I accuse the first court-martial of having violated the law in con- 
demning an accused person on a document kept secret. And I accuse 
the second court-martial of having by order screened this illegality, com- 
mitting in its turn that which in a judge is a crime — knowingly acquit- 
ting a guilty person." 

M. Zola v.-as accordingly tried in February, 1898, before the Assize 
Court, whose president, M. Delegorgue, did everything possible to prevent 
the witnesses of the defence from giving testimony bearing on the Drey- 
fus case. He had plenty of weapons at his command, including the ever- 
present gag of " state secrets " and the equally effective chose jugee and 
"professional secrecy." 

Maitre Labori, an able and fearless lawyer, was counsel for M. Zola. 
Although heavily handicapped by the rulings of the president of the court, 
he succeeded in bringing out valuable points in favor of Dreyfus, notably 
the illegal manner in which the prisoner was condemned, the apparent 
error in attributing the bordereau to Dreyfus, and the seeming identity of 
its real author, Esterhazy. 


President Delegorgiie again and again announced that he could not 
admit rebutting testimony on certain vital points raised by the prosecu- 
tion, or on the charges made by M. Zola in his famous " I accuse " letter. 
This so exasperated the novelist that, during the second day of the trial, 
he heatedly announced that he wished to be treated at least as fairly as 
thieves or murderers were treated. He claimed tliat while such criminals 
had the right to defend themselves, he, M. Zola, was deprived of such 
rights. But the court ruled against the defence, and there was nothing to 
do but submit. 

One of the witnesses at the trial of M. Zola was M. Casimir-Perier, 
who had resigned the presidency of the Picpublic, and had been succeeded 
by M. Felix Faure, who died suddenly on the 16tli of February, 1899, 
and was in turn succeeded in the presidency by M. Emile Loubet. 

On being sworn, M. Casimir-Perier said : 

"Excuse me, but I cannot tell the truth. That is just what I may 
not tell. It is my duty not to tell the truth. " 

The resignation of M. Casimir-Perier, it became known later, was in 
some manner connected with the Dreyfus case, his friends holding that he 
resigned in order not to become further mixed up in the matter. 

General de Boisdeffre, the Chief of Staff, caused a sensation at the Zola 
trial, by saying that, according to his view of the case, the guilt of Drey- 
fus was certain, adding that there w^ere facts both anterior and subsequent 
to the trial wkich made this certainty unshakable. 

General Mercier, the former Minister of War, advanced the opinion 
that Dreyfus had been legally and justly condemned. 

Major Esterhazy practically confined himself to refusing to reply to 
the questions put to him, on the ground of professional secrecy, and Gen- 
eral Pellieux made an excited speech, during which he dropped dark hints 
of danger threatening the fatherland, etc., etc., in the usual refrain of the 

The examination of Colonel Picquart was obstructed throughout by 
the judges, but Maitre Labori succeeded in making a fierce and effective 
attack on the enemies of Dreyfus, which caused the Headquarters Staff to 
make a rally and wave the old fiction of mystery above their heads. 
Generals de Boisdeffre and Pellieux proved themselves equal to the occa- 
sion. General Pellieux, turning to the jury, said: 


" If the chiefs of the army are to be discredited in the eyes of the sol- 
diers, your sous, gentlemen, will be led to the slaughter." 

General de Boisdeffre went a step further. He actually threatened 
that the chiefs of the army would resign unless, practically, they were 
allowed to have their own way. 

As a last shot, the new "secret document," — the forged Panizzardi de- 
spatch — was presented to the court, and Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse 
confirmed the fact that it had been "intercepted by the vigilance of the 
Government. " 

Maitre Labori, however, was not permitted to see this document. 
But Colonel Picquart declared it to be a forgery. It was produced in 
court at the very moment the prosecution was endeavoring to show that 
Esterhazy was not the author of the bordereau. 

Maitre Labori, in his summing up for the defence, said : 

"Zola's letter was a cry for justice and truth. It has rallied all save 
some disturbers around what France counts the greatest and purest. Do 
not be alarmed or allow yourselves to be intimidated. The honor of the 
army is not involved. They tell you of dangers near. Do not believe in 
these dangers. These brave officers, who have made a mistake, will yet 
fight with the highest courage and lead us to victory. Do not strike 
Emile Zola. Gentlemen, you know well that he stands for the honor of 
Prance. It is by the heart, by moral energy, that great battles are won, 
and I also cry * Vive I'armt^e ! ' when I ask you to acquit Zola. I cry at 
the same time ' Long live the Eepublic ! ' ' Long live the right ! ' ' Long 
live eternal justice and truth ! ' " 

M. Clemenceau, for the defence, reviewed the testimony which con- 
firmed his conviction that Dreyfus had been illegally condemned, and pro- 
tested against the idea that this constituted an insult to the army. The 
only person who had insulted the army, he declared, was Esterhazy, and 
it was high time to distinguish between the cry of " Vive I'arm^e ! " and 
that of " A^ive Esterhazy ! " 

"Many Frenchmen are saying," he continued, "that it is possible that 
Dreyfus was condemned irregularly, but that he was justly condemned, 
and that suffices. That is the sophistry of reasons of state. We dance 
every 14th of July upon the ruins of the Bastile. These reasons of state, 
if they prevail, will constitute another and lower Bastile. It was a reason 


of state which, by the guillotine, stopped the maguiliceub movement of 
1789. There is no justice outside of the law. It is sad, no doubt, to 
come into conflict with the military, brave men, who believed that they 
were doing right. This happens to civilians without uniforms, it happens 
to civilians in uniforms, for soldiers are nothing else. 

" Gentlemen, render the country the service of stopping a religious war 
at its commencement. You have seen what happened in Algiers. Say 
in the name of the French people that justice must be done even to the 
Jews. Say to the relig:'.ou3 war v/hich has just begun : ' Thus far shalt 
thou go and no further.' "We appear before you, gentlemen; you are ap- 
pearing before history." 

By a vote of eight to four, the jury rendered a verdict against M. 
Zola, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of 3,000 francs and to undergo a 
year's imprisonment. 

The case was carried to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the judg- 
ment of the Assize Court on the ground that the case should have been 
brought by the court-martial which M. Zola had libelled, and not by the 
Minister of War, Consequently a second trial took place, but M. Zola 
declined to be present; he \/as again sentenced to the fine and imprison- 
ment, and left France for England, where he remained until the revision 
pspceedings before the Court of Cassation enabled him to return to France. 


Chapter XX. 

The Meline Cabinet, in June, 1898, was succeeded by the Brisson 
Cabinet. M. Sarrien became Minister of Justice, M. Cavaignac became 
Minister of War, with the firm intention of settling into oblivion for all 
time the Dreyfus case, whose echoes were then heard all over the world. 

Eeplying to an interpellation in the Chamber of Deputies, M. Cavai- 
gnac made a memorable speech in which he attempted to put the quietus 
upon the Dreyfus case. He outlined the result of his investigations, and 
said considerations superior to reasons of law made it necessary to the 
Government to bring before the Chamber and the country the facts which 
confirmed the conviction of Dreyfus. The minister said there was abso- 
lutely no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, which was based on his 
own confessions and on documents on file in the Intelligence Department 
of the War Office. 

This so-called confession was a remark attributed to Dreyfus by Cap- 
tain Lebrun-Eenault, of the Eepublican Guard, who had charge of the 
prisoner at the Military School just previous to his degradation. He is 
alleged to have said, after vigorously protesting his innocence, that if he 
had handed over documents to the agents of a foreign power he did so in 
order to oltain more important papers in return, and, in any case, the doc- 
uments he had surrendered were unimportant papers. 

In short, M. Cavaignac reviewed the whole of the Government case, 
already outlined, and wound up by saying that absolute proof, if it had 
previously been needed, was furnished by the Panizzardi despatch. 

The Chamber of Deputies was enthusiastic over the speech of the Min- 
ister of War, and passed a resolution to the effect that it should be printed 
and placarded in every Commune throughout France, of which there are 
about thirty-six hundred. 

But this was not all M. Cavaignac did. In his efforts to crush utterly 


the friends of Dreyfus, he ordered Esterhazy to be brought before a Court 
of Military Inquiry to justify his military career, owing to a serious indis- 
cretion upon the part of the major. Among other charges brought against 
him, it was said that, in 1882, he wrote to Madame de Boulancy, his cous- 
in, a letter which was afterward seized by General Pellieux as a result of 
the proceedings previous to the court-martial of Esterhazy. This letter 
showed that Esterhazy had very bitter feelings against the French army 
and the French nation. He said that the French were an " accursed peo- 
ple," and expressed the opinion that they were "not worth even the car- 
tridges for killing them ! " 

Continuing, this French officer said it would please him greatly to be 
slain as a captain of Uhlans (Prussian Lancers) while he was sabreing the 
French, and he said his favorite dream was to see Paris " beneath the red 
sun of battle, given over to pillage by a hundred thousand drunken 
soldiers. " 

It was also asserted that Esterhazy had written certain letters to the 
President of the Eepublic, and he was charged with certain irregular pro- 
ceedings before and after his court-martial. 

The Military Court of Inquiry was asked to pronounce upon the fol- 
lowing questions : 

Ought Esterhazy to be cashiered for habitual misconduct? 

There was three votes in the affirmative and two in the negative. 

Ought Esterhazy to be cashiered for grave offence against discipline? 

The court unanimously decided in the negative. 

Ought Esterhazy to be cashiered for offence against honor? 

One member of the court voted yes, and four members of the court 
voted in the negative. 

The Military Governor of Paris, General Zurlinden, in forwarding the 
finding of this court to the Minister of War, M. Cavaignac, pointed out 
that, as the decision was not unanimous, in accordance with army cus- 
toms it would be sufficient to inflict only a disciplinary punishment 
upon the accused, by withdrawing him from the active list of the 

The minister, however, decided that Esterhazy should be cashiered; 
and some time afterward the name of Du Paty de Clam was also removed 
from the active list of the army. 


Having apparently settled the cases of Esterhazy and Du Paty de 
Clam, ]\I. Cavaignac turned his attention to Colonel Picquart, who had 
informed the Premier that he could prove that one of the three documents 
referred to by M. Cavaignac in the Chamber of Deputies, as proof of the 
guilt of Dreyfus, was a forgery. The ]\Iinister of War ordered Picquart to 
be proceeded against, and he was arrested and lodged in prison. 

For a while, things ran smoothly for the Headquarters Staff. But, in 
August, 1898, the generals had a rude awakening. They were informed 
that Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, the head of the Intelligence Department, 
the backbone of the prosecution of Dreyfus, who had in court dramatically 
pointed to Dreyfus as the traitor, had broken down and confessed to hav- 
ing forged at least one of the documents quoted by M. Cavaignac before 
the Chamber of Deputies as furnishing absolute proofs of the guilt of the 
prisoner of Devil's Island. 

This was followed by the news of the arrest of Henry and his impris- 
onment in Mont Val^rien, where, it is claimed, he cut his throat with a 

We purposely use the words "it is claimed," in referring to the death 
of Henr}', because the suicide theory has never been accepted in the best- 
informed circles at Paris. Men who are versed in military customs are 
well aware that a prisoner of such importance, arrested after making such 
a startling confession, would never have been allowed to have a razor or 
other weapon within his reach, and, as in the case of a detective of the 
Government, Lemercier-Picard, who was found strangled to death by 
hanging in his apartments, the opinion has prevailed that Henry was mur- 
dered by the anti-Dreyfus clique's agents in order to save the honor of the 

At this point it may be interesting to refer to a legend current in Paris 
in 1894, which had it that General de Boisdeffre one day entered the 
bureau in which Dreyfus was at work, and, placing a document before 
him, asked the captain if he would copy it, to which Dreyfus is said to 
have replied, "Certainly." Continuing, the story says Dreyfus had no 
sooner cast eyes on the paper than he turned deadly pale and exhibited 
signs of the greatest emotion, whereupon General de Boisdeffre is said to 
have placed a revolver on Dreyfus's desk, with the words: 

"I will return in five minutes' time." 


The general, it is further said, did return at the expiration of the time 
mentioned, and, finding Dreyfus still alive, remarked : 

"What, not yet?" 

The arrest of Dreyfus is said to have been ordered immediately after- 

Of course this is only one of the many fairy tales in circulation at 
that time, for General de Boisdeffre has never referred to the matter, and 
he certainly would have done so had the story been true. It is true, how- 
ever, that a pistol was placed near Dreyfus when he was arrested. He 
saw it, but declined to make use of it. 

The death of Henry sealed the fate of M. Cavaignac as Minister of 
War, and he was sensible enough to recognize it; for he resigned. It also 
sent General de Boisdeffre into the background, for, as chief of the staff 
and main adviser of the minister, he was compelled to resign with M. 
Cavaignac, and General Zurlinden, then Military Governor of Paris, was 
appointed Minister of War. 

Zurlinden followed the example of M. Cavaignac in some respects. 
He started to study the documents in the Dreyfus case. But it would 
seem he did not derive much satisfaction from them, for, after about a 
week in ofhce, he resigned and resumed the military governorship of the 
city of Paris. General Chanoine succeeded General Zurlinden as Minister 
of War, and Esterhazy, possibly on account of his health, left France, and 
from that time on he may said to have been a wanderer on the face of the 
earth, making confessions, for considerations, to any one willing to pay 
for them, that he wrote the bordereau, and offering to prove this and other 
matters of an equally important nature. 

At this point there is one question that is not quite clear, and that is, 
how was it that Henry w^as compelled to admit that he had committed 
forgery. The generally accepted answer to this question is that the gov- 
ernments of Germany and Italy, which had previously denounced the 
Panizzardi-Schwartzkoppen correspondence as forgery, took steps to im- 
press this upon the French Government in unmistakable terms. Previous 
to this the French Government and the French War Office had paid no 
attention to the repudiations of the German and Italian governments, 
though they strongly denied having had any connection with Dreyfus. 

Another version of the affair is that Captain Cuignet, of the Intelli- 


gence Department, ascertained, with the use of an extra strong lamp, that 
the Panizzardi document had been "doctored," and was not identical with 
the paper upon which the rest of the correspondence appears. 

The details are not of great importance. The main facts, that Henry- 
had confessed to forgery, and that his death had resulted from his action, 
were fully established, and higher and higher rose the hopes of the friends 
of the prisoner of Devil's Island. 

The new minister of justice, M. Sarrien, in conjunction with Colonel 
Picquart, now began in earnest the work of inquiring as to whether it was 
not advisable to revise the Dreyfus court-martial of 1894. The Brisson 
Cabinet became committed to a revision, though the Minister of War was 
opposed to it. 

Picquart, from his prison, wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice 
asking permission to tell him all he knew of the Dreyfus affair. The 
minister replied that he was willing to hear anything the prisoner had to 
say, and thereupon Picquart entered into a long description of the secret 
dossier as he knew the document in 1896, and charging that the fact that 
papers had been secretly communicated to the members of the Dreyfus 
court-martial was well known to General Mercier, General de Boisdeffre, 
the late Colonel Sandherr, General Gonse, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, and 
Colonel Du Paty de Clam. 

When the Minister of War, Zurlinden, heard of this, he sent the 
Minister of Justice a note tending to show that Picquart was not to be 
trusted, and that he ought to be tried by court-martial for forging the 
IKtit bleu. In addition, General Zurlinden applied to the Cabinet for per- 
mission to try Picquart by court-martial, but the minister refused to allow 
him to do so. 

At a ministerial council held in the middle of September, 1898, under 
the presidency of the President of the Eepublic, M. Sarrien referred to 
Paragraph IV., Article 443, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which 
provides for reopening a case, if, after a condemnatory verdict, fresher 
evidence is discovered tending to show that the innocence of the person 
condemned may be established. The minister then pointed to the confes- 
sion of Henry as being of a nature to throw a legitimate suspicion upon 
the evidence which he furnished before the court-martial which sentenced 


The ministers were divided upon the question of reopening the case. 
The Minister of War was decidedly against such a step, and so was the 
Minister of Public Works, M. Tillaye, while the President was somewhat 
undecided. In the end the question was referred to the Permanent Cora- 
mission of Eevision of the Ministry of Justice, to decide whether the case 
should or should not be re-tried by carrying it to the Court of Appeals. 
The commission could not agree, and then the Brisson Cabinet applied, 
through the Procureur-G^ndral, to the Court of Appeals direct. Eventu- 
ally M. Bard, one of the members of the court, was instructed to report 
upon the case, and thus was taken the first great step toward revision. 


Chapter XXL 


About a month after the revision question had been taken before 
the Court of Appeal, probably better known as the Court of Cassation, 
there was a debate in the Chamber of Deputies on October 25, 1898, on 
the action of the Government, during which the Minister of War, General 
Chanoine, ascended the tribune and announced that, representing as he did 
th3 army, he could not be a party to a revision of the Dreyfus case. The 
resignation of the Brisson Cabinet followed. It was succeeded on October 
31st by a Cabinet presided over by M. Dupuy, who held office at the time 
of the court-martial of Dreyfus, and M. de Freycinet was the Minister of 
War. This ministry was not favorable to Dreyfus, and on September 21st 
Colonel Picquart was brought before the tribunal on the charge of com- 
municating War Office documents to a civilian, M. Leblois, his lawyer. 
The Military party, however, demanded that Picquart should be surren- 
dered to the military authorities so that he might be prosecuted for forg- 
ing the 2><^tit UfAt. The civil judge yielded, and Picquart was turned over 
to the military authorities, whereupon he loudly exclaimed in court: 

" I absolutely oppose my being surrendered. I submit my caso to your 
■wisdom, but I have something further to say. It is only here, and a few 
minutes ago, that I learned the reality of the abominable plot in which 
this morning I still could not believe. It is the charge of forgery in re- 
gard to the 'petit lieu. You would have understood the matter more 
plainly if this trial had taken place, for it would have enlightened you 
with regard to the good faith of my accusers. I shall perhaps this even- 
ing go to the Cherche Midi, and now is probably the last time prior to 
secret trial that I can say a word in public. I would have people know, 
if there be found in my cell the rope of Lemercier-Picard, or the razor of 
Henry, that I have been assassinated. For a man like myself cannot for 
an instant think of suicide. I shall face this accusation erect and fearless, 


and with the same serenity with which I have ever met my accusers. 
That is what I had to say, Monsieur le President." 

These utterances were received with cheers for Picquart upon the part 
of the Dreyf usards and with cries of " Down with the forgers ! " from the 

There was little doubt that the bold statement made by Picquart in 
court saved his life. 

The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation met October 27, 1898, 
to consider the report of M. Bard. 

After referring to the party passions aroused by the case and the, preju- 
dice, even before the verdict, expressed against the prisoner, M. Bard 

" The echoes from outside cannot disturb that fear, for we have but a 
single passion, that of justice and truth." 

Continuing, the reporter of the court said the bordereau was the essen- 
tial document in the case against Dreyfus, and that the word of Lieuten- 
ant-Colonel Henry, a self-confessed forger, was the only guarantee of its 
origin. The forgery of Henry, under the circumstances, left nothing of the 
original trial of 1894 intact, especially as the handwriting experts of 1897 
completely contradicted the testimony of the handwriting experts of 1894. 

M. Bard then said : 

" It is not too much to affirm that the accusation is now entirely nulli- 
fied. It might indeed be asked, whether, as an acquittal was incumbent, 
the court ought not to certify as it did last January, in quashing a judg- 
ment of an Algiers court-martial, that there was no crime, and simply 
annul the judgment without ordering a fresh trial. 

"Whatever might be the opinion of the court on the judgment of 1894, 
it would not forget that the military authorities were opposed to revision. 
It was the function of the Court of Appeals to bring the truth to light. 
It was a delicate task, but it w^ould be derogatory to the court to suspect 
it of shirking its duty. Already there have been too many derelictions 
of duty in this long series of incidents. Free from all considerations or 
suggestions which had inspired others, and solely anxious for justice, the 
court has a great duty before it, and it will follow the dictates of its 

When j\I. Bard had concluded his report the court was addressed by 


the Procureur-General, M. Manau, and by counsel for Madame Dreyfus, 
M. Mornard. 

The court, on October 29, 1898, delivered judgment as follows: 

" In view of the letter of the Minister of Justice of September 20, 

" In view of the arguments submitted by the Public Prosecutor attached 
to the Court of Cassation, denouncing to the court the condemnation pro- 
nounced by the first court-martial of the Military Court of Paris, on De- 
cember 22, 1894, on Alfred Dreyfus, then captain of artillery, attached 
to the General Staff of the army; 

"In view of all the documents of the case, and also of Article 443 to 
446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, amended by the law of June 10, 
1895, on the admissibility, in proper form, of an application for revision — ■ 

" Whereas, the court has had the matter brought before it by its Public 
Prosecutor, in virtue of an express order of the Minister of Justice, acting 
after having taken the opinion of the Commission established by Article 
444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; 

" Whereas, the application comes witliin the category of cases provided 
for by the last paragraph of Article 443, and has been introduced within 
the period fixed by Article 444; 

" Whereas, finally, the j udgment, the revision of which is asked for, 
has the force of a chose jugee. 

" As regards the state of the case : 

" Whereas, the documents pi-oduced do not place the court in a position 
to decide on all the merits of the case, and there is ground for making a 
supplementary inquiry; 

" Por these reasons, the court declares the application in proper form 
and legally admissible ; states that it will institute a supplementary inquiry ; 
and declares that there is no ground for deciding at the present moment 
on the Public Prosecutor's application for the suspension of the penalty." 


Chapter XXII. 

The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, October 29, 1898, 
began taking testimony in the revision proceedings. All was not smooth 
sailing, however. M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire, President of the Civil Sec- 
tion of the court, joined in the attacks made upon his colleagues, and mat- 
ters became so complicated and feverish that, after a great deal of squab- 
bling, the adjudication of the Dreyfus case was transferred to the United 
Chambers of the Court of Cassation. This was practically declaring that 
tlie highest criminal court in the country was incapable of dealing with 
the case. 

Matters had reached this stage, when M. F^lix Faure, President of the 
Eepublic, died suddenly, and the country was thrown into a state of tur- 
moil. All parties looked upon the President's death as an opportunity to 
create disturbances, and they did so in their own ways. The Eoyalists 
and Bonapartists actively plotted against the Government, and M. D^rou- 
Ifede, founder of the League of Patriots, attempted to incite a detachment 
of troops to march upon the Elys^e Palace. These troops were com- 
manded by General Eoget, and had taken part in the funeral procession. 
The soldiers paid no attention to M. D^roulfede, and he and others were 
arrested and acquitted of inciting soldiers and troops to rebellion, although 
he pleaded guilty to the charge. 

While the question of revision was before the Court of Cassation the 
usual number of rumors was circulated. The anti-Dreyfusards and a ma- 
jority of the court were against the revision, and this had a depressing 
effect upon the Dreyfusards. Here the Figaro stepped into the breach 
and managed to publish all the evidence taken in secret before the Court 
of Cassation. Thus did the press throw its searchlight upon the mysteries 
of the Headquarters Staff, and up went the hopes of the friends of Dreyfus. 

When the judges of the United Chambers of the Court oi Cassation 


met ill the Palace of Justice to hear the report of M. Ballot-Beauprd, 
President of the Civil Section of the court and successor of M. Quesnay de 
Beaurepaire, who had resigned, there was a period of expectancy through- 
out the world. The report, which was an exhaustive one, dealt with the 
bordereau as the one question at issue. Was the bordereau in the hand- 
writing of Dreyfus ? In reply M. Ballot- Beaupr^ said : 

"Gentlemen, after a profound study of the question, I, for my part, 
have come to the conviction that the bordereau was not written by Drey- 
fus, but was written by Esterhazy." 

It then became known that there existed two letters, written in 1892 
and 1894, written by Esterhazy upon the same kind of water-mark and 
filigree tracing paper as that upon which the bordereau was written, which 
fact does not appear to have been known to the members of the court- 
martial of 1894. 

In conclusion, M. Ballot-Beaupr^ said : 

" I do not ask you to proclaim the innocence of Dreyfus, but I say 
that a fact unknown to the judges of 1894 tends to prove it. This suffices 
to ordain the sending of the prisoner before a new court-martial to bring in 
a definite verdict with a full knowledge of the case." 

The Procureur-G^i^ral, M. Manau, took the same ground. He said 
the paper upon which the bordereau was written had spoken and estab- 
lished the innocence of Dreyfus, so far as the authorship of the borde- 
reau was concerned. He added : 

" What remains is that, whoever may be guilty, a crime of treason has 
been committed, but Esterhazy, having been acquitted of having written the 
bordereau, cannot be prosecuted again, were he a hundred times guilty. 
As to the innocence of Dreyfus, I do not ask you to proclaim it — that is 
for the new court-martial, to which, if the court so decides, the case will 
be referred. Your mission, gentlemen, is another — to say whether there 
are sufficient elements to prove that the judgment of the court-martial of 
1894 is tainted with suspicion. It being now established that Dreyfus 
had nothing to do with the bordereau, we will dispense ourselves from 
entering upon a technical discussion of the facts. That will be for the 
new court-martial. ■ It will be for them to reconcile the opinions of the 
former Ministers of War on that point, and to discuss with their special 
science the things which are unknown to us." 


The Procureur-General, during the course of his argument, pointed to 
the lack of incentive to commit such a crime in the case of Dreyfus, 
showing that he was well-to-do, and had married a wealthy woman, while 
Colonel Du Paty de Clam had admitted in his report that Dreyfus led a 
regular life, and did not live beyond his means. It was also shown that 
the prisoner had a splendid future before him. His position was compared 
with that of Esterhazy, the needy adventurer, who was seeking money in 
all directions. 

M. Manau wound up with the statement that there was nothing in 
the secret dossier to incriminate Dreyfus, adding : 

" We do not yet understand why there was so much delay in submit- 
ting these documents to investigation. They were secret only for Drey- 
fus, and they cannot be brought up against him. He knows, as the basis 
of his indictment and conviction, solely the bordereau and his alleged 
confession. The examination of the secret papers results in showing that 
of the three documents by which M. Cavaignac (w^heu Minister of War) 
sought to justify the condemnation of the prisoner, two are forgeries, and 
the third does not apply to Dreyfus. 

Finally, the Procureur-General touched upon the alleged confessions of 
Dreyfus to Captain Lebrun-Picnault, who had charge on the prisoner on 
the day of his degradation. He said that it was only in November, 1897, 
that the story of the alleged confession was brought up at the request of 
General Billot, and he held that this w^as clear proof that the so-called 
confession was not made by Dreyfus. 

M. Manau severely criticised M. Cavaignac, who, he said, had de- 
pended for the proof of Dreyfus's guilt on a sheet from a note-book de- 
stroyed by Captain Lebrun-Eenault. The Procureur-G^n^ral then re- 
marked : 

" I have the right to say that these confessions never existed, and I 
should like to know whether the incomprehensible evidence of M. Bertil- 
lon was not the first cause of Dreyfus's condemnation." 

M. Manau alluded to the accounts of officials who had been in contact 
with Dreyfus, and who all affirmed their belief in his innocence, and 
quoted letters written from the Devil's Island wherein the prisoner repelled 
the imputations brought against him. He had been told in 1894 that 
" superior interests " were opposed to any search for the real culprits. In 


his letters he asked that, notwithstanding these interests, honor might be 
restored to the name he bore, and that he should be restored to his family. 
What was there more human? The chief officer of Devil's Island de- 
clared that Dreyfus was an abominable being, loving neither his wife nor 
his children. If so, how could he write such letters? 

In conclusion, M. Manau said : 

" I decline to believe that the court can refuse Dreyfus the supreme 
relief which is being solicited for him. The country, the world, and his- 
tory are awaiting the decision; they will pass a judgment without appeal. 
Before them and before the court we assume the responsibility of our con- 
clusions as magistrates and as citizens with the consciousness of having 
done our duty. These conclusions are : 

" We affirm the existence of several new facts which are of a nature to 
establish the innocence of Dreyfus. Consequently, let it please tlie court 
to pronoimce the abrogation of the judgment of December 22, 1894, and 
to send Dreyfus, in the quality of an accused person, to such court-martial 
as it may be pleased to designate." 

No sooner were the facts of the alleged confession first published, early 
in 1895, than M. de Civry, managing editor of the Echo de I'Armee, 
wrote an article on the subject, directed against Dreyfus, and, incidentally, 
sent the proof to the late Colonel Sandherr, then head of the Intelligence 
Department of the War Office, for revision before publication. The reply 
of Colonel Sandherr to M. de Civry is quite an important piece of evidence 
in favor of Dreyfus. It is as follows : 

Saturday, January 6, 1895. 
My Deak de Civry : 

No, do not publish the article which Georgin has just submitted to me. 
It would open the door to needless discussions ; for, I tell you frankly, it 
is not correct. Dreyfus did not make confessions to the captain of the 
Republican Guard, as he has told you. Hence, no capital can be made 
out of the confessions, and you must not set them against the public pro- 
testatioiLS of the condemned man. The latter simply recalled the words 
of the minister which Major Du Paty de Clam had been deputed to convey 
to him. The captain, who, without proper reason, has noised abroad the 
conversation held by him with the condemned man before the degradation, 
has involuntarily omitted to put in his mouth the words * he said ' in 
speaking of these remarks of the minister : ' If I have furnished documents, 


he said, it was to obtain others. ' I do not know the full text of these 
remarks, but rest assured they are the words of the minister; not of Drey- 
fus. This mistake might elicit protestations from the defence or the fam- 
ily. Pass this incident over, therefore, in silence. The less you speak of 
this sad affair in the Echo de I'Armce the better will it be for us. You 
have better things to do. Georgin agrees with me." 

Thus ended the great fight for the revision of the Dreyfus case. 


Chapter XXIII. 

No sooner had the Court of Cassation pronounced in favor of the revi- 
sion than the then Minister of War, M. de Freycinet, resigned, as a pro- 
test against the court's action, and M. Krantz, a man of more moral cour- 
age, succeeded him, and orders were sent to the Governor of Prench 
Guiana to ship Dreyfus back to France. 

Then all thoughts were turned toward Devil's Island, and more and 
more sympathy for the prisoner was aroused, due in great measure to the 
publication of the testimony before the Court of Cassation of M. Lebon, 
the Minister of the Colonies, who admitted having ordered the sick man 
to be placed in double irons and subjected to other punishments, because 
it was feared he might be rescued. The French cruiser Sfax was ordered 
to take the prisoner on board, and there were many heartfelt good wishes 
for Dreyfus when it became known that he was homeward bound. 

He was embarked at Cayenne on June 8, 1899, and was landed at 
Aliquen, on the Quiberon Peninsula, during the night of July 1st, and 
in very stormy weather. But it is to be presumed that the elements did 
not affect the prisoner's joy at once more setting foot on French soil. He 
saw ahead of him his honor vindicated, and a reunion with the faithful 
wife who had labored so gallantly in his behalf for five long and weari- 
some years in spite of every cruel obstacle thrown in her path. 

The captain of the 8fax, referring to Dreyfus after the prisoner had 
been landed, said : 

"There is extraordinary energy in this man. During the twenty days 
we were at sea he gave no sign of weakness." 

And this was in spite of the fact that he was confined in a cabin, with 
the window closed and an armed sentry at the door. 

A member of the crew of the Sfax, in his diary, described the embark- 
ation of Dreyfus as follows: 


" In a steam launch w© perceived a civilian attired in a suit of dark 
blue cloth, and wearing a cork helmet. He hid his head in his hands. 
Sometimes he rose and took a couple of steps, and then he sank down on 
a bench. He seemed exhausted. We wondered who this personage could 
be. All sorts of rumors were current among the crew, and, after an hour's 
interval, the officers left the captain's cabin and orders were given for a 
boflt to go alongside this launch and fetch the man on board the Sfax. 
This was done, and ten minutes later we saw former Captain Dreyfus 
ascending the ladder with difficulty, and with uncertain steps, followed by 
the gendarmes, who had revolvers in their belts. He staggered as he 
reached the deck, but he recovered his composure. "With a still trembling 
hand he saluted in the military style, drawing himself up with a quick 
movement, as he was very bent. He had gray hair and a dark-red beard. 
His general appearance was fairly good, in spite of the seasickness from 
which he was suffering." 

After his arrival on board the Sfax, Dreyfus was taken to his cabin 
by the second officer of that cruiser, and was furnished with a w^ardrobe, 
table, washstand, and bed. The port-hole of the cabin was strongly- 

The Sfax weighed anchor June 10th, without having had time to take 
on board her full supply of coal or water, and sailed for the island of St. 

Dreyfus was watched night and day. During the day-time he was 
allowed to take three turns on deck, in the morning from nine until ten, 
from eleven until noon, and in the afternoon from four until five o'clock. 
All the officers and sailors were expressly forbidden to hold any commu- 
nication with the prisoner. His meals were sent to him in his cabin from 
the officers' table. 

The prisoner spent his time in reading and writing, though sometimes 
he looked long out of the port-hole, apparently plunged in deep thought. 
His baggage consisted of two portmanteaus, containing linen, books ; sev- 
eral packages of chocolate, small biscuits, and several bottles of toilet 
vinegar. He generally went to bed at seven, arose about midnight to 
smoke a cigarette, and got up regularly at five o'clock in the morning. 

June 13th, at 2 :30 p.m., the Sfax arrived off the island of St. Vincent, 
from which place no letters or telegrams were allowed to be sent, as the 


journey of Dreyfus was ti) be kept a secret. The cruiser arrived at Ali- 
quen July 1st. 

The fishermen of that place were the first to make out the cruiser, and 
they spread the news of her coming, resulting in the whole population, 
about one hundred and fifty persons, rushing off to the pier, where a closed 
carriage drawn by two white horses was drawn up. In the vehicle was 
M. Yiguier, Director of the Criminal Department. The One Hundred and 
Sixteenth Eegiment of the Line stood waiting in the rain for the landing 
of Dreyfus. Shortly before two o'clock a launch approached the pier. 
Dreyfus got out of the boat, and, between two gendarmes, with slow and 
weary steps, he ascended the side of the pier, and reached the carriage of 
M. Yiguier. As the prisoner entered the carriage it was surrounded by 
troops, and he was driven at a rapid pace, still in the pouring rain, to the 
Quiberon railroad station, about a kilometer from Aliquen. 

A special train was waiting at Quiberon. It consisted of four carriages, 
and started in the direction of Eennes as soon as the prisoner was on 
board. The train, however, was stopped at La Eablais, a level crossing a 
mile or so outside the city. Carriages were in waiting there. The pris- 
oner and his immediate escort entered the vehicles, and Dreyfus was 
driven rapidly to the prison at Eennes. His carriage was surrounded by 
gendarmes, and as it approached the prison the gates were opened and two 
hundred gendarmes, who had been on duty inside, suddenly rushed out 
and barred the street on either side of the entrance. Those who were able 
to obtain a glimpse of Dreyfus as he was hurried into the prison noticed 
that he looked startled and tired. He wore a blue suit with a gray over- 
coat and a soft felt hat. His hair was gray, and his beard was trimmed 
to a point. The eyes of the prisoner seemed to lack expression. He first 
looked at the ground, then at his escort, and afterward at the prison, but 
he seemed to see nothing, or to be in a dream. A moment later Dreyfus 
was again in a prison, not to reappear again until brought before the sec- 
ond court-martial which was finally to decide his fate. 

Some days previous to this Madame Dreyfus had arrived at Eennes, 
and a well-known resident of the place, Madame Godard, placed her house 
at her disposal. 

Madame Dreyfus was immediately informed of the arrival of her hus- 
ban<l at Eennes, and was accorded permission to visit him. As may b^ 


supposed, the meeting between the long-separated and long-suffering hus- 
band and the wife was touching in the extreme. 

The prisoner was also allowed to see the lawyers who had been pro- 
vided for him, and the next few days were spent in talking over the events 
of the past five years, of wdiich the prisoner was profoundly ignorant. 
But he was deeply distressed when told of the machinations of which he 
had been a victim, and for a time seemed very much discouraged. The 
cheering words of his wife and the advice of his friends and lawyers even- 
tually gave him more nerve, and he began to prepare for the trying ordeal 
to which he was to be subjected. 


Chapter XXIV. 


One of the features of the case which aroused the foreign press a great 
deal against the persecutors of Dreyfus, was the treatment to which he 
was subjected to by M. Lebon, the Minister of the Colonies, while the 
prisoner was on Devil's Island, and the minister was so severely criticised 
that, on July 12, 1899, although no longer a member of the ministry, he 
felt compelled to issue a full statement of his position, which certainly 
did not change the opinion people had formed about him. In this docu- 
ment, M. Lebon said : 

" M. Louis Ha vet having substituted definite charges for the system of 
vague insults of which I have been the object for two years, and M. Guil- 
lian having dispelled some of the legends which there is an attempt to 
substantiate with reference to the He du Diable, I feel bound to break the 
silence which I have hitherto imposed upon myself from respect for the 
work of justice now going on, and to explain myself as clearly as I can as 
to the measures which I adopted and my reasons for them. I shall say 
nothing, moreover, which cannot be verified by the records of the Colonial 
Office, and I declare once for all that I accept entire responsibility for my 
acts, and that I entirely indorse the action of my old subordinates in the 
execution of my orders or in the acts which they reported to me, and 
which I did not blame at the time. 

" I first recall certain facts outside my own administration. The pub- 
lic degradation of Dreyfus having taken place early in January, 1895, M. 
Gu^rin, then Minister of Justice, and M. Delcasse, then Minister for the 
Colonies, asked Parliament on the 11th of that month to indicate the lies 
du Salut as a place of transportation in a fortified enclosure, together with 
the Duces Peninsula, in order, as the preamble of the bill said, * to* 
increase the guarantee of supervision, and thus render the repression &a 
effective ^s possible,' The bill was promulgated piq. February ^tb, ^r4 


was countersigned by MM. Traireux and Chantemps. It was in the spring 
of the same year, 1895, that general instructions were given for the new 
transportation service, and I did not become Minister for the Colonies 
until a year later, at the end of April, 1896. During the first months of 
my ministry I had no occasion to pay any attention to the system estab- 


lished at the lie du Diable. The measures to be taken for the pacification 
of Madagascar, with the choice of a suitable man to be sent there, occu- 
pied my whole time, and I had no inclination to display ' fury or hatred 
or the instinct of an executioner,' which M. Louis Havet deigns to admit 
are totally lacking in me. I will add, in order to reassure him imme- 
diately as to the reasons for my action, that I should never have dreamed 
that I should one day be accused of having yielded to the ' fear of jour- 
nalists.' lu the mistakes I may have made during my public life it is 
rather in the contrary direction that I seem to myself to have erred. 

" What, then, were my motives ? And first, how did matters stand in 
the summer and autumn of 1896, as regards the Dreyfus affair? In the 
excitement of the past few months this question would appear to have 
been totally forgotten. No one then publicly defended the innocence, 
true or supposed, of the prisoner. No one disputed the authority of the 
chose jugh. Everybody, except a few who had special knowledge, was 
anxious that Dreyfus should not escape, and was eager to discover the ac- 
complices who were almost imiversally thought to have helped him. It 
was by no means my duty to listen to outside rumors nor to substitute 
any personal opinion for the decisions of those who had been qualified to 
express one. I had in his case, as in that of all transported convicts, 
merely to insure the execution of the decrees of justice and of the laws. 
How did I come to think that there might be some doubt of the effective- 
ness of the system at Devil's Island, and how was I led, a full year 
before the commencement of the revisionist agitation, and without making 
the slightest mention of it to the journalists, as can easily be shown, to 
adopt the measures for which I am now blamed? 

" Within the space of a few weeks I learned that, one after another, two 
service telegrams relative to the prisoner had been communicated to the 
press; that another sent, like the first, by one of my predecessors had 
never reached its destination; that, finally, a person connected with the 
penitentiary administration could not be counted upon for the faithful exe- 


cutiou of his duties, but that he frequently spoke of the possibility of pro- 
curing Dreyfus's escape. It was at tliis moment, early in September, that 
the English papers disseminated broadcast a report that an American ship 
had carried off Dreyfus, and then for the first time I obtained explanations 
of the organization of Devil's Island, and easily discovered that such a 
rescue was physically possible. 

" Now, I did not wish that Dreyfus should escape, nor was I anxious 
to have his sentinels obliged to apply the general orders which permit 
recourse to the most extreme measures in order to prevent a prisoner 
from escaping. Hence my telegram of September 4th, to the Governor of 
Guiana. Here is its complete text as regards the point in question : 

"'You will keep Dreyfus until further orders in liut, double staple at 
night. You will surround perimeter court round hut with solid palisad- 
ing, with sentinel inside.' 

" In order thoroughly to indicate the essentially temporary character 
of this measure of rigor, I telegraphed that the prisoner should be carefully 
informed that it was a measure of security, not of punishment; and, be- 
lieving that my orders were already on the point of being fulfilled, I tele- 
graphed again on the 19th, to say that as soon as the palisading was fin- 
ished the double staple should be removed. Unfortunately, the work was 
done with less celerity than I had hoped, but neither then nor afterward 
was I apprised of the slightest disorder in the prisoner's health. 

"Was I right or wrong in being so anxious as to the possibility of 
escape? All I can say is that during my two years' tenure of office hardly 
a month passed in which similar projects were not brought to my attention, 
either by the Prefecture of Police, by the Detective Department, or by 
diplomatic or consular agents. The external defence of the island being 
henceforth assured, none of these projects affected the prisoner's treatment. 
On the contrary, the work hastily done in September, 1896, having modi- 
fied the hygienic conditions of his hut, a new building more spacious and 
healthier was prepared for him early in 1897, at the instance of one of the 
very agents now being most unjustly attacked. 

" What is now called the Weyler forgery had nothing whatever to do 
with all this, though it was contemporaneous with it. It was, however, 
the cause of other measures which I felt bound to take as regards the 
prisoner's correspondence. The tenor of that document, and the way in 


which it reached the Colonial Office, have been sufficiently indicated in the 
inquiry of the Supreme Court. I will only say that no one then, not even 
a certain eminent personage in the Intelligence Bureau, affirmed or ap- 
proved it to be a forgery, and that it gave ground for believing that, apart 
from the prisoner's regular correspondence, then submitted, like that of all 
prisoners, to the control of the Peniteirtiary Department, there existed be- 
tween Dreyfus and his friends or family other relations which escaped all 
supervision. This suspicion was confirmed by other facts, either concom- 
itant or subsequent, and gave rise toward the end of 1897 to a very sug- 
gestive report by the head of the local service as to the removal at the 
beginning of 1898 of a suspected sentinel. If I had shown in the affair 
that blind passion now attributed to me I should, perhaps, have adopted 
measures other than those which I had definitely adopted. I decided that 
copies of the letters exchanged between Dreyfus and his family should be 
transmitted instead of the originals, so that the apparent and known text 
should alone reach its destination. But as to having attempted by means 
of subordinates, as is insinuated, to undermine the condemned man's con- 
fidence in his family by suppressing, mutilating, or deliberately delaying 
any of their letters, I affirm that such an idea prevailed neither in Paris 
nor Guiana. 

" Such is the strict truth free from all dissimulation or amplification. I 
am surprised that in facts which have been so long known to the parties 
concerned, and on which no one ever ventured to present an interpella- 
tion, such tardy accusations should be revived. I might, moreover, show 
by relating either a conversation held or a correspondence exchanged with 
certain leaders of the sad controversy now witnessed by us, the signal bad 
faith which has been employed; but having no personal concern in this, 
and being only anxious to show that a servant of the Republic is not the 
' sinister torturer ' represented, I limit myself to this too long explanation." 


Chapter XXV. 


A MONTH after Dreyfus had been landed in France and a week before 
the opening of the court-martial at Eennes, the Paris Figaro published 
some most interesting correspondence, showing how steadily the prisoner 
maintained his innocence and how clearly he met all the points of his 
accusers. The letters, however, were not sent to their addresses, by order 
of Premier M^line. 

The first letter of the series referred to follows : 

Ile du Salut, February 28, 1898. 
On the very morrow of my condemnation, now more than three years 
ago, when Major Du Paty de Clam came to see me on behalf of the Min- 
ister of War, to ask me, after I had been condemned for an abominable 
crime which I had not committed, whether I was innoceat or guilty, I 
declared that not only was I innocent, but that I wished for the light, the 
complete light, and I asked immediately for the aid of all the customary 
means of investigation, either through the military attaches or in any 
other mode at the disposal of the Government. I was told that interests 
superior to mine, owing to the origin of this lamentable and tragic history 
and owing to the origin of the incriminating letter, prevented the custom- 
ary means of investigation, but that the inquiry would be continued. I 
have waited for three years in the most terrible situation conceivable, 
suffering continuously and without cause, but these researches never end. 
If, then, interests superior to mine are to prevent, and must always pre- 
vent, the use of the only means of investigation which can finally put an 
end to this horrible martyrdom of so many human beings and throw com- 
plet3 light on this tragic business, these interests can surely not require 
that a woman, children, and an innocent man should be sacrificed to them. 
Otherwise we must go back to the darkest ages of our history, when the 
truth and the light are stifled. A few months ago I submitted the whole 
tragic and undeserved horror of this situation to the high equity of the 
Government. I now do the same to the high equity of Messieurs les 


Deputes to ask them for justice for me and mine, the life of my children, 
and an end to this frghtful martyrdom of so many human beings." 

The prisoner wrote a similar letter to the Senators. 

Dreyfus, on March 21st, wrote as follows to the Minister of War: 

A few months ago, probably in consequence of a report on the accu- 
sation, I was told that this was based — (1) on a charge against my family. 
This document was unknown to me. It was never communicated to me, 
so I could not reply. It is, moreover, as atrocious as it is calumnious. 
(2) The presumption drawn from the handwriting. I declared that I was 
not the author of the incriminating letter; I showed from its contents that 
I could not be. (3) The trembling of the hand. At the court-martial 
Major Du Paty de Clam, in reply to a question, affirmed that it was warm 
at the time. M. Cochefort, a few moments later, declared with me that it 
was piercingly cold. (4) The rest of the accusation. Another document. 
At the court-martial the straightforward protest of Captain Besse against 
the interpretation given to his deposition, and the explanation given by 
Major Mercier, forced the Government commissary to abandon this por- 
tion of the accusation. Moreover, at the court-martial the oral evidence 
and the explanations brought out by the defence reduced this entire por- 
tion to nothing. (5) Moral causes — gaming, and women. I can only 
refer to my own declaration, in opposition to which no serious proof was 
given, no signed deposition. The court upheld none of the atrocious anony- 
mous documents which had been appended to the dossier. In a letter to 
the Minister of Justice a few months ago I asked, in the name of the im- 
prescriptible rights of truth and justice and in the interests of my wife and 
children, that a serious inquiry should be made to elucidate definitively 
all the anonymous gossip and reports. To sum up, I appeal. Monsieur le 
Ministre, to General de Boisdeffre's loyalty and to that of those who ob- 
tained my condemnation, that it may be made known that at the court- 
martial, where the minister was represented, the accusation, save for the 
first document — of which I had no knowledge, and which was communi- 
cated therefore solely to the judges — the accusation was reduced by dis- 
cussion to a presumption as to handwriting. 

No. 1 in this letter refers to M. Bertillon's theory that the bordereau 
was both in Captain Dreyfus's hand and in that of his brother. 

The following letter was written by Dreyfus to President Faure. It is 
dated February 14, 1897, but was never finished nor sent; 


I venture once more to appeal to your high justice. For more than 
two years, innoceot of an abominable crime the very thought of which 
revolts my whole being, I have been undergoing the most frightful torture 
imaginable. I cannot possibly tell you, Monsieur le President, how I have 
suffered; my heart alone knows. Another pen than mine is needed to 
describe tortures such as these. And if I have lived, holding down my 
heart, keeping myself in check, swallowing insults and affronts, it is be- 
cause I would have wished to be allowed to die tranquil, knowing that I 
should be leaving to my children a pure and honored name. But, alas ! I 
have been too great a sufferer. I can endure it no longer. Ah ! Mon- 
sieur le President, I know not how to find words to tell you how I suffer, 
to describe the horrors of every minute in every liour of the day, horrors 
against which I succeeded in bearing up only in the supreme hope of be- 
holding once more for my dear children the day when honor will be 
restored to them. And in this profound distress of my whole being, in 
this agony of my whole strength, it is to you. Monsieur le President, to 
the Government of my country, that I throw again this supreme cry of 
appeal, sure that it will be heard. And this supreme cry of appeal from 
a Frenchman, a father, who now for more than two years has lain on a 
bed of torture, is ever the same — namely, for the truth of this terrible 
drama, for the unmasking of the man or men who committed the infamous 
crime. . . . 

On January 6, 1898, Dreyfus wrote to the Governor of Guiana: 

I venture to send you the enclosed letter, asking you if it would not 
be possible to have it transmitted at my expense by telegraph to the 
President of the Eepublic. 

The enclosed letter was as follows : 

Not having received any letters from my family now for two months, 

my brain maddened, I once more affirm to you that I never was, that I am 

not, and that I cannot possibly be the culprit. 


The following is the letter written by Dreyfus to the head of the local 

penitentiary service in October, 1896, on learning that he was to be put 

in irons: 

I have just been warned that I shall be put in irons at night. I 
should be very grateful to you if you would tell me what fault I have 


committed. Since I have been here I believe that I have strictly obeyed 
all the rules, all the orders. All that has been told me I hare executed in 
its integrity. I take the liberty, therefore, of asking you what I must do 
to avoid so terrible a punishment. I have been living only out of duty to 
my wife and children. If I am to die, the sooner the better. 


Chapter XXVI. 


The second trial by court-martial of the prisoner of Devil's Island 
opened at 7:10 a.m., on Saturday, August 7tli, in the Lyc^e, at Rennes, 

The Prefect of Police and the Chief of the Secret Police, M. Viguier, 
arrived at the Lyc^e shortly before 6 a.m., and began superintending the 
police measures. At that hour only half a dozen gendarmes were visible 
about the building. They were stationed about the entrance of the Lyc^e 
and inside the garden in front of it. The garden is separated from the 
sidewalk of the Avenue de la Gare, on which the Lycee is situated, by a 
high iron railing, within which no one was allowed to pass until Dreyfus 
was transferred from his quarters in the military prison to a room within 
the Lycde building, where he awaited the summons to appear before the 

Strong detachments of g-endarmes, mounted and on foot, began to arrive 
at about six o'clock, and took up positions in the side avenues about the 
Lyc^e and in all the by-streets leading to the Avenue de la Gare. 

At 6:15 A.M., the Prefect gave orders to close the Avenue de la Gare 
for three hundred yards in front of the Lyc^e, and also to close all the 
streets leading into the avenue. Consequently, gendarmes were imme- 
diately drawn up across the avenue, and the space mentioned was cleared 
of all spectators. 

A detachment of infantry was then stationed across the avenue in two 
double lines, leaving between them a passage for Dreyfus to cross the ave- 
nue from the prison to the entrance to the Lyc(^e. The crowd, which by 
that time had increased to a few hundreds, was kept by gendarmes at a 
distance of one hundred and fifty yards on either side of this passage. 

Dreyfus soon afterward emerged from the military prison escorted by a 
lieutenant and four gendarmes. The party crossed the roadway quickly 


and disappeared withiu tlie Lycee, the hedges of soldiers hiding the pris- 
oner from view. 

From 6:30 to 7 a.m., the principal personages participating in the 
court-martial arrived. The various generals interested passed into the 
building, with hardly a cheer from the spectators, General ]\Iercier (who 
was Minister of War when Dreyfus was originally convicted) alone being 
greeted with a few cries of " Vive 1' Arm^e ! " " Vive Mercier ! " as he drove 
up in a closed carriage. 

Colonel Picquart (the former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Bureau of 
the French army, whose favorable attitude toward the prisoner did so much 
to bring about a revision of the latter's sentence) arrived at the Lycee on 
foot, at 6 :40, wearing a high silk hat and a black frock coat, with the red 
ribbon of the Legion of Honor in his buttonhole. There was no demon- 
stration when he appeared, but Picquart seemed to be in a most cheerful 
mood, smiling and chatting with his friends. 

The scene inside the court-room was most animated. Every inch of 
space was filled a quarter of an hour before the proceedings opened. 

The large, airy, well-lighted room in which the trial took place was in 
the form of a concert hall, with a stage and proscenium. The platform 
of the stage had been brought forward beyond the footlights. The room 
was painted a light brown. The names of famous Bretons, such as Le 
Sage, Eenan, and Chateaubriand were inscribed in golden letters on an 
ornamental band about midway between the floor and ceiling. A long table 
covered with dark-blue cloth was ranged in front of the stage, behind 
which were the seats of the members of the court-martial, a higher-backed 
armchair having been provided for the president. The seats were of pol- 
ished mahogany, and were upholstered in dark-red cloth. 

Behind the members of the court sat the Supplementary Judges, who 
must attend all sittings and be able to replace any member who may be ill 
or otherwise be unable to be present. Behind the Supplementary Judges 
were a few privileged members of the public. 

On a portion of the stage extending in front of the proscenium was 
placed tlie bar at which the witnesses were heard. The bar had a wooden 
frame of light polished oak. It stood out prominently against the dark 
cloth-covered table of the judges. 

On the right end of this extended platform stood a table for the use of 



'! I 


I— t 





Ex-Minister of War M. Cavaignac. Ex-President M. Casimir-P^rier. 

The late President, 
General de Freycinet. ^l. ¥6\ix Faure. General Gallifet. 


Golonel Henry. M. Deroulfede. 

Major Esterhazy. 
General Boisdeffre. General Roget. 


Maitres Labori and Demange, counsel for the prisorer, and their two secre- 
taries. At the left side was placed a table for Major Carriere, the Gov- 
ernment Commissary, or official representative of the Government, and his 

M]\I. Labori and Demange, on entering, were greeted with warm 
handshakes from numerous friends in the court-room. 

Former President Casimir-Perier entered shortly before seven. An 
officer met him at the door, and conducted him to the velvet-covered chairs 
reserved for witnesses. The ex-President found liimself between Generals 
Billot and Chanoine, both in parade uniform. Other ex-Ministers of 
War — Generals Mercier and Zurlinden, and M. Cavaignac — were seated 
in a row behind them. 

The widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, dressed in detp mourn- 
ing, was present in court, and replied to her name in the roll-call of 

M. Mathieu Dreyfus and Dreyfus's father-in-law, M. Hadamard, were 
among the audience. 

On either side of the hall was a solid mass of newspaper men, for 
whom rough pine tables and benches had been provided. 

In the centre of the hall were placed chairs for the witnesses. Behind 
these was another batch of the privileged public, and then a row of sol- 
diers, in parade uniform, drawn across the hall, with fixed bayonets. 

A narrow space between the troops and the back of the hall was filled 
with the "general public," which consisted of a few journalists and detec- 
tives, with gendarmes sprinkled among them. Back of the stage hung a 
crucifix, before which the witnesses took the oath. Facing this, at the 
back of the hall, was an emblem of the Republic, with the letters " R. F." 
(R^publique Francaise). 

At seven o'clock MM. LaboTi and Demange and Major Carriere, with 
their assistants, took their seats, and the witnesses followed. Then sharp 
words of command rang out from the officer in charge of the row of sol- 
diers at the back of the court: 

" Carry arms ! " 

" Present arms ! " 

There was a rattle of arms, and a moment later Colonel Jouaust, fol- 
lowed by the other members of the court, walked on to the stage from a 


room behind and took seats at the table. Deep silence fell upon the audi- 
ence, who up to then had been engaged in a buzz of conversation. 

Colonel Jouaust and his colleagues were in full parade uniform, with 
plumes in the front of their peaked shakos. Colonel Jouaust's aigrette 
was white ; the others w^ere tri- color. On the right hand of Colonel Jou- 
aust sat Lieutenant-Colonel Brongniart, Major de Breon, and Captain 
Parfait, all of the artillery. On his left hand were Majors Profillet and 
Merle and Captain Beauvais, also of the artillery. 

An interesting figure, seated behind the judges, was the famous and 
mysterious lady known as La Dame Blanche (the White Lady), who never 
absented herself from any of the proceedings connected with the Dreyfus 
affair, including all sessions of the Esterhazy, Zola, and Picquart trials, 
and the proceedings of the Court of Cassation. All the actors in the 
drama are known to her. She is a pronounced Dreyfusarde, very rich, 
and wears splendid pearls. She was dressed that day in a " picture " hat 
with black and white trimmings and a pink bodice. Her name is Mile. 
Blanche de Comminges, wiiose salon Colonel Picquart frequented, and 
whom Henry and Du Paty de Clam attempted to implicate in an alleged 
plot of the Dreyfusards to substitute Esterhazy for Dreyfus as the author 
of the bordereau. 

The splendid, gold-laced uniforms of the generals summoned as wit- 
nesses, and the imiforms of the judges, soldiers, and various officers pres- 
ent, combined to light up the dark tints with which the walls of the hall 
were painted, and gave a bright appearance to the court-room. 

Immediately after Colonel Jouaust was seated he gave the order to 
bring in the prisoner. All eyes were then turned to the right of the stage, 
beside which was a door leading to the room in which Dreyfus was await- 
ing the summons. Almost everybody but the most prominent officers 
stood on his feet. Some mounted on benches to obtain a better view. 

There were subdued cries of "Sit down," amid which the door opened 
and Captain Alfred Dreyfus, preceded and followed by a gendarme, emerged 
into the court-room. His features were deathly pale and his teeth were 
set, with a determined but not defiant bearing. He walked quickly, with 
almost an elastic step, and ascended the three steps leading to the platform 
in front of the judges. There he drew himself up erect and brought his 
right hand sharply to the peak of his k^pi, or military cap, giving the mili- 


tary salute in a fashion that showed that years of incarceration of Devil's 
Island and terrible anguish of body and mind had not impaired his sol- 
dierly instinct and bearing. 

The prisoner then removed his kepi and took the seat placed for him, 
facing his judges, just in front of his counsel's table, and with his back 
to the audience. Behind him sat a gendarme holding a sheathed sabre in 
his hand. Dreyfus, in a new UDiform of captain of artillery, dark blue 
with red facings, fixedly regarded the judges, with immovable features and 
without stirring hand or foot, scarcely even moving his head during the 
whole course of the proceedings, except when he entered and left the 

Dreyfus answered the formal question of the President of the Court, 
Colonel Jouaust, as to his name, age, and other matters, in a clear, deter- 
mined voice. He sat facing the members of the court, with his hands 
resting on his knees, an apparently impassive figure. 

After the formal proceedings, which occupied a couple of hours. Colo- 
nel Jouaust began the examination of Dreyfus respecting the famous bor- 
dereau, and what Dreyfus did with or could have known of its contents. 

When Dreyfus, wearing eyeglasses, rose from his seat for examination, 
he stood erect, holding his k^pi in his hand before him. He looked Colo- 
nel Jouaust straight in the face during the whole interrogatory 

After the court had decided not to adjourn on account of the absence 
of certain witnesses, the clerk of the court was ordered to read M. d'Or- 
mescheville's bill of indictment of 1894, which he did in a loud voice, 
Dreyfus, in the mean while, listening unmoved as the old charges against 
him were read. 

This is the famous Ade d' Accusation first made public in Ze Siecle 
of Paris, January 8, 1898. It accused Dreyfus of writing the bordereau, 
and of transmitting it, together with the documents therein mentioned, to 
the agent of a foreign power. It also made serious reflections upon his 
personal character. 

Colonel Jouaust then said: 

"It results from the documents just read, that you are accused of hav- 
ing brought about machinations or that you held relations with a foreign 
power, or with one or more of its agents, in order to procure it means, by 
delivering to it documents indicated in the incriminating bordereau, to 


commit hostilities or undertake war against France. I notify you that 
you will be allowed to state during the course of these proceedings any- 
thin that appears to you useful for your defence." 

Colonel Jouaust then added, as he handed the prisoner a long slip of 
cardboard upon which the bordereau was pasted : 

"Do you recognize this document? " 

Dreyfus replied, with a passionate outburst: 

"No, Colonel! I am innocent! I declare it here as I declared it in 
1894. I am a victim " 

His voice here was choked with sobs, which must have stirred every 
spectator in court. The voice of the prisoner did not seem human. It 
resembled the cry of a wounded animal, as he ended his reply with the 
words, " Five years in the galleys ! My wife ! My children ! My God ! I 
am innocent ! " 

Colonel Jouaust said : 

"Then you deny it?" 

Dreyfus replied: 

"Yes, Colonel." 

On the court proceeding to the roll-call of witnesses, the most notable 
absentees being Esterhazy, Du Paty de Clam, and Mile, Pays, Dreyfus 
half turned his head toward the seats of the witnesses, especially when 
the clerk of the court called Esterhazy. But when no response was re- 
ceived, Dreyfus returned to his previous attitude, looking straight in front 
of him at Colonel Jouaust. 

Esterhazy at the time was in London. Du Paty de Clam was recently 
released from Cherche-Midi prison, where he was confined pending an in- 
vestigation to ascertain whether in shielding Esterhazy in 1897-98 he had 
acted on his own initiative or by orders of his superior officers. 

Mile. Pays is a friend of Esterhazy, who plotted with him to ruin 

The court afterward retired to deliberate upon the case of the absentee 
witnesses, the soldiers in the court-room, in response to the word of com- 
mand of the lieutenant in charge, carrying and presenting arms, the judges 
leaving and re-entering to the rattle of rifles, cs the line of soldiers 
brought their weapons, like a piece of machinery, smartly to the " Pre- 
sent ! " and then dropped the butts heavily to the floor. 


Tiiis perforiuauce was repeated every time the court retired. 

Dreyfus was withdrawn iuto an inner room during the court's retire- 

On the final return of the court, Major Carriere said he thought the 
absence of Esterhazy ought not to prevent the trial proceeding. 

"Let him come or not," he said, "it matters nothing to me." 

Colonel Jouaust then proceeded to question Dreyfus as to his knowl- 
edge of the "120 brake," a hydro-pneumatic attached to an improved 
French field-piece. The prisoner, in brief, said he had only a general idea 
of the brake. 

The court then questioned the prisoner about his knowledge of the 
covering of troops, and Dreyfus replied that he had no knowledge of this 
question in 1894, though he had certain documents concerning the provi- 
sioning and conveying of troops. 

Colonel Jouaust then turned to the note referring to Madagascar, 
and said : " You could have obtained this document from the corporal's 

Dreyfus — That is not usual. 
Colonel Jouaust — No, but it could be done. The copying was finished 
on the 28th, and the bordereau dates from several days later. Now for 
the fifth document — the proposed Firing Manual for Field Artillery. 
Did you know the contents of the manual? 

Dreyfus (emphatically) — No; never! 

Colonel Jouaust — A witness said you communicated it to him. 

Dreyfus (vehemently) — No; never! 

Colonel Jouaust — A major lent you this Firing Manual? 

Dreyfus — No, Colonel. I deny it absolutely. 

Dreyfus then entered into an explanation of dates, but his memory 
failed him. 

Colonel Jouaust then took up the famous phrase, " I am starting for 
the manoeuvres." He said: 

'■' You had never been to the manoeuvres, because it was the custom 
only for probationers to go. But at the date of the bordereau you did not 
know you would not go ? " 

Dreyfus — There had been fresh orders given. 

Originally' it wa^ alleged tliat the bordereau was written in April, 




1894. It was subsequently discovered that Dreyfus knew as early as 
March that he was not to attend the spring manoeuvres. The real date 
was then given, August, 1894. But Dreyfus did not attend the fall ma- 
noeuvres of that year. 

Colonel Jouaust — At the Military School you were reproached for 
saying the Alsatians were happier as Germans than as Frenchmen? 

Dreyfus — No; I never uttered such words. 

General de Dionne, who was at the head of the War School in 1892, 
where Dreyfus was a pupil, made this charge against the prisoner before 
the Court of Cassation. Thereupon the general was confronted with a 
report written by him in 1892, iu which he spoke of Dreyfus in the high- 
est terms. 

Colonel Jouaust — How do you account for the bad note against you 
written by a certain general? 

Dreyfus — He said he wanted no Jews on the General Staff. 

Colonel Jouaust — In 1892 you went to Mulhouse, Alsace. What 
did you do there ? 

Dreyfus — I went there three times, by way of Basle, without a pass- 
port. Once I arrived at my house, I never went out. 

Colonel Jouaust — You went there in 1886? 

Dreyfus — Yes, possibly. 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you follow the German manoeuvres? 

Dreyfus — No. 

Colonel Jouaust — Did j'ou converse with German officeis? 

Dreyfus — I deny it absolutely. 

Colonel Jouaust — What was your object in going to Alsace? 

Dreyfus — For instruction. 

Colonel Jouaust — You wrote certain information respecting the man- 
ufacture of the Eobin shell. You said this information was requested by 
a professor of the ]\Iilitary School. This was false. I am told you asked 
officers indiscreet questions. 

Dreyfus — It is not true. 

Colonel Jouaust — Had you relations with a lady living in trhe Eue 

Dreyfus — I had no intimate relations with her. 

Colonel Jouaust — I do not mean from a moral point of view, but 


from a military point of view. This woman was suspected of spying. 
Why did you visit her ? 

Dreyfus — I only learned that at my trial, in 1894. Major Gendrion 
introduced me to her, and as Gendrion belonged to the Inquiry Bureau he 
ought to have known if she was suspected. 

Col®nel Jouaust — Passing through the Champs Elysees in 1891 you 
remarked: "Here lives a certain lady. Suppose we call on her. I have 
lost heavy sums at her house." 

Dreyfus — It is false. I have never gambled. Never ! Never ! 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you know Colonel Du Paty de Clam ? 

Dreyfus — No. 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you know Lieutenant-Colonel Henry ? 

Dreyfus — No. 

Colonel Jouaust — You have no motive for animosity against them ? 

Dreyfus — No. 

Colonel Jouaust — And Colonel Picquart? 

Dreyfus — I don't know him. 

Colonel Jouaust — And Lieutenant-Colonel Esterhazy? 

Dreyfus — I don't know him. 

Colonel Jouaust — Colonel Du Paty de Clam said that your writing at 
his dictation was less firm when he made you undergo a trial on the day 
of your arrest. 

Dreyfus — My writing has not much changed. 

Here a non-commissioned officer who was standing in front o-f Major 
Carriere crossed the platform and handed Dreyfus his writing on the day 
of his arrest. 

Dreyfus replied by insis-ting there was nothing to show any percepti- 
ble change in his handwriting. 

Here occurred one of the most dramatic scenes in the examination. 
Dreyfus, tremendously excited, swayed to and fro for a moment, and then 
all his pent-up emotion and indignation burst forth, and he cried in a pierc- 
ing voice, heard throughout the court and even by those standing outside : 

" It is iniquitous to condemn an innocent man. I never confessed any- 
thing ! Never ! " 

Dreyfus, as he uttered the words, raised his right, white-gloved hand 
and held it aloft as if appealing to Heaven to vindicate him. 


Colonel Jouaust — Did you say : " If I handed over documents it was 
to have more important ones in return ? " 

Dreyfus — No. 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you say : " In three years they will recognize 
my innocence " ? Why did you say " three years " ? 

Dreyfus — I asked for all means of investigation. They were refused 
me. I was justified in hoping that at the end of two or three years my 
innocence would come to light. 

Colonel Jouaust — Why three years? 

Dreyfus — Because a certain time is necessary to obtain light. , 

Colonel Jouaust then said : 

"Coming to the day of your degradation, what passed between you and 
Captain Lebrun-Kenault ? What did you tell him ? " 

Dreyfus — Nothing. It was really a sort of broken monologue on my 
part. I felt that everybody knew of the crime with which I was charged, 
and I wished to say I was not the guilty party. I wished to make clear 
that the criminal was not he whom they had before their eyes, and I said : 
"Lebrun, I will cry aloud my innocence in the face of the people." 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you not say, "The minister knows I handed 
over documents " ? 

Dreyfus — No. If I spoke of a minister who knew I was innocent, I 
referred to a conversation I previously had with Du Paty de Clam. 

This ended the first day of the second court-martial. 

Colonel Jouaust treated Dreyfus brusquely, almost brutally, and it was 
a matter of satisfaction to the friends of the prisoner when the latter set 
the judge himself right on certain dates connected with Dreyfus' s stay on 
the General Staff. It was an unimportant point, but it was eloquent tes- 
timony to the keenness of Dreyfus's intellect. 

The prisoner sat most of the time with his legs stretched out, his 
spurs resting on the ground, his hands joined and resting on his lap. He 
repelled the insinuations, that he had relations with German officers dur- 
ing his stay in Alsace, in fiercely indignant terms. 


Chapter XXVIl 

The court-martial sat in secret session on Monday, August 9th, from 
6:30 A.M. until 11:45 a.m., in order to examine the secret documents in 
the case, and this was continued until August 11th. Several of the docu- 
ments were written in German, and in the course of the proceedings a 
German dictionary was sent for. When certain words and expressions 
could not be exactly understood, even with the aid of the dictionary, Drey- 
fus, who is a perfect German scholar, volunteered a translation, and v/as 
allowed to give explanations, which were of valuable assistance to the 
members of the court. 

The police measures were much more stringent than on the day of the 
opening of the trial. Strong detachments of infantry instead of gendarmes 
cordoned the streets leading to the Lycee. Gendarmes alone performed 
this duty August 7th, and the sightseers, who were much less numerous, 
barely numbering three hundred persons, were pressed still further back. 
Even persons standing inside the entrance hall of a house in view of the 
door of the Lyc(^e were compelled to retire into the interior of the house, 
and the front door was closed. Absolutely nobody but police and soldiers 
were thus within one hundred yards of Dreyfus when he crossed the 
Avenue de la Gare. The police authorities explain the rigor of these 
measures on the ground that yesterday a few cries against the prisoner 
were raised while he was crossing the avenue. 

Maitre Demange, of counsel for Captain Dreyfus, in an interview after 
the session of August 10th, expressed himself as very well contented with 
the way in which matters were proceeding, and, judging from his manner, 
it was apparent that the defenders of the accused had not met with any- 
thing very surprising or alarming in the secret dossier. 

Naturally Maitre Demange declined to give any particulars respecting 
the contents of the dossier, but he declared that he and his colleague, 


Maitre Labori, were satisfied of the desire of the members of the court to 
thresh the whole matter out, and to have full light turned upon the accu- 
sations against Dreyfus. 

The court-martial concluded its secret sessions at nine o'clock on Au- 
gust 11th, when M. Paleologue of the Foreign Office completed his ex- 
planations of the secret dossier. 


Chapter XXVIIL 


The second public session of the second court-martial of Captain Drey- 
fus began at 6:30 o'clock August 12th. The red-and-white facade of 
the Lycee was bathed in sunshine when Dreyfus crossed the Avenue de 
la Gare from his prison and entered the Lycee. The stringent police pre- 
cautions observed every day during the week were again taken, but barely 
twenty persons gathered to witness the prisoner's appearance. 

M. Casimir-Perier, ex-President of Prance, arrived on foot shortly 
afterward, and was saluted by a crowd in waiting. Then came Colonel 
Picquart, formerly of the Secret Intelligence Bureau of the General Staff. 
He was greeted with shouts of " Vive Picquart ! " which he smilingly 

The curtain rose on the same theatre-like scene as on August 7th. 
The judges, in uniform, were seated on the stage, behind the dark, cloth- 
covered table on which, in a row, were kepis with gay-colored plumes and 
heavy gold-lace bands. Every inch of the court was occupied, in expec- 
tation of a sensational scene. 

The session opened with precisely the same formalities as on August 
7th. Dreyfus entered the hall with the same quick, jerky step, and his 
features were pale and rigid as he took a seat upon the platform. Drey- 
fus, on entering the court, saluted the president with the same soldierly 
mien, and Colonel Jouaust returned the salute, and said : 

"Sit down, Dreyfus." 

The proceedings opened tamely. Matters began to get tedious as M. 
Casimir-Perier and General Mercier reiterated what had been already 
shown. But this was only the calm before the storm. Wlien the storm 
broke, it carried every one in court with it int© a whirlpool of the wildest 

Colonel Jouaust, immediately after the oowrt had settled down to work, 
opened the proceedings by saying to Dreyfus : 



"In January, 1895, the director of the penitentiary of the He de E^, 
in the course of duty, searched the clothes you brought from the prison. 
He found this document in an inside pocket of your waistcoat." . 

The president here handed Dreyfus a paper, and asked : 

"Do you recognize it as having belonged to you? " 

Dreyfus — Yes, Colonel. 

Colonel Jouaust — Whose was it? 

Dreyfus — Mine. 

Colonel Jouaust — Will you tell me how and under what circum- 
stances this document came into your possession ? 

Dreyfus — It is a document I used during my trial. In order to dis- 
cuss the value of the bordereau I wished to keep it. 

Colonel Jouaust — The Military Code gives you the right to have a 
copy of the documents in your case. This document, therefore, was legiti- 
mately in your possession. Why did you wish to keep it? 

Dreyfus — As a souvenir of the text of the bordereau? 

Colonel Jouaust — That was not proper, and, therefore, it was taken 
from you. I merely wish to elucidate this point. That will do. 

M. de la Eoche-Vernet, a secretary attached to the French Embassy 
at Berlin, was the next witness called. He said he acted as the transmit- 
ting agent of the Ministry of War and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 
the translation of the Panizzardi despatch, which was a very minute and 
complicated matter. Several drafts, he explained, were first made, and 
finally an official translation was drawn up, which was the same as since 
published. The original of this despatch was in cipher. It was sent, 
November 2, 1894, by Colonel Panizzardi, Italian attach^ in Paris, to the 
Italian Headquarters Staff in Rome. Its true construction, which obviously 
establishes the innocence of Dreyfus, is : 

" If the captain has had no relations with you, it would be well to 
instruct our Ambassador to avoid the comments of the press." 

The original has disappeared from the secret dossier. But there exists 
a version given by Du Paty de Clam "from memory," which reads: 

"Captain Dreyfus arrested. The Minister of War has proof of his 
relations with Germany. All my precautions are taken." 

Questioned respectively regarding the draft and the translations, he 
said they were purely hypothetical, the first only having two words, " Cap- 


tain Dreyfus," of which tlie translators were really sure, the sense being 
to the effect that Dreyfus had been arrested, and that he had no relations 
with Germany, 

M. Paleologue of the French Foreign Office was then called. 

The net result of the two witnesses' replies to MM. Labori and Dem- 
ange was that never, in any translation, was there any question of rela- 
tions with Germany. 

The next witness was M. Casimir-Perier, formerly President of France. 
He said : 

" Monsieur le President, you ask me to speak the truth and all the 
truth. I have sworn to do it. I will speak it, without reference, with- 
out reserve, in its entirety. Whatever I may have said in the past, what- 
ever people may believe and say, which, unfortunately, is not always the 
same thing, that I alone am aware of incidents and facts which might 
throw light, and that I have not hitherto said all, justice ought to know 
that it is false. I will not leave this place without saying all. I intend 
to do this, not because I can add anything useful to what I have already 
said, but out of respect to my conscience and the judges and to the opin- 
ion of men of good faith. I will not leave this place until I have left an 
unalterable conviction that I know nothing which might throw light on 
the case, and that I have said all I know." 

When M. Casimir-Perier took the witness-stand at the first Zola trial, 
he replied : 

"I cannot take oath to tell the whole truth, because I cannot tell it." 

The witness read the text of the despatch received by Count von Mun- 
ster-Ledenburg, the German Ambassador at Paris, from Prince Hohenlohe, 
the German Imperial Chancellor, which the former communicated to M. 
Casimir-Perier during a visit to the Elysee Palace. It ran : 

"His Majesty the Emperor, having every confidence in the loyalty of 
the President of the Republic and the Government of the Pepublic, begs 
your Excellency to tell M. Casimir-Perier that it is proved the German 
Embassy was never implicated in the Dreyfus affair. His Majesty hopes 
the Government of the Republic will not hesitate to declare so. Without 
a formal declaration, the story which here continues to spread regarding 
the German Embassy would compromise the position of the representative 
of Germany." 


M. Casimir-Perier then recounted how he had expressed to the then 
Premier and Minister of War his astonishment and indignation at the 
interview concerning Dreyfus's alleged confession, which Captain Lebrun- 
Eenault gave Le Figaro on tlie subject of Dreyfus, 

The witness then related the facts in connection with the futile efforts 
of M. Waldeck-Eousseau to prevent the first court-martial from sitting 
behind closed doors, and said he (the witness) had never received any 
member of the Dreyfus family. M. Casimir-Perier concluded this part of 
his statement by raising his voice and speaking very excitedly, saying : 

"For the honor of the Chief Magistracy, which I occupied, for the 
honor of the Republic, I will not allow it to be said that I had exchanged 
a word with a captain in the French army accused of treason." 

This statement caused applause in court, which Colonel Jouaust speed- 
ily suppressed. 

The ex-President ended his statement by saying : 

" I affirm, before this tribunal of a soldiers, that my resignation was 
not connected with the diplomatic incident concerning Germany. It 
pains me not to be able to second the court in the work of justice confided 
to it, for from this place must emerge at last, for the sake of the country, 
reconciliation and peace. I can do no more than tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth. As Chief of State, or when a citizen, I 
have always, in my respect for France, regarded her as free to make a 
decision as she is herself revered." [Applause, which was quickly sup- 

M. Demange then introduced the question of the letter which the 
anti-Dreyfusards asserted Dreyfus wrote to M. Casimir-Perier respecting 
him. The witness emphatically replied that he had never entered into 
any such engagement, as alleged, and he asked that the letter, which was 
published by the Eclair of Paris, should be produced in court, and that 
the whole matter should be cleared up. M. Casimir-Perier ended this 
statement with a slap of his hand on the rail of the desk. 

Colonel Jouaust then asked Dreyfus if he had anything to say. 

Thereupon the prisoner arose and, accompanying his utterances with 
gestures of his right hand, said : 

" My words have certainly been distorted, for I have no recollection of 
such a letter. The words the former President of the Republic has just 


uttered are exact. I have never, even in my own mind, supposed there 
was any engagement undertaken by him, and that he had not held thereto. 
I can well understand the indignation of M. Casimir-Perier ; but such an 
idea never crossed my mind. 

" Will you allow me to explain ? M. Demange had asked me at the 
time of the trial, in conveying through M. Waldeck-Eousseau my request 
for a public trial, that this publicity should only be on condition that the 
question of the origin of the documents remained secret. I gave my 
word of honor not to raise this question, and in that I bowed before the 
superior interests of my country. In my mind it was with the defence, 
and not with the President of the Piepublic, that the word of honor was 
given. I nevefr had an idea that an engagement was made between the 
President and myself. Never ! Never ! Never ! " 

Colonel Jouaust — Then you declare false these letters in which it is 
said that the President of the Eepublic entered into certain engagements 
with you? 

Dreyfus replied : 

" In any case, the sense has been completely distorted. " 

M. Casimir-Perier gave his evidence with a blanched face, but in the 
determined tone of a man who maintains every word uttered, which in- 
spired confidence in his words. The members of the court-martial listened 
to him respectfully. 

General Mercier, who was attired in the undress uniform of a general 
— black tunic and red trousers — and wore on his breast the decoration of 
a Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor, was then called to the stand. As 
he sat down he placed a brilliant crimson and gold k^pi on a shelf at- 
taehed to the witness rail, where it remained, a striking patch of color, dur- 
ing the time he gave his testimony, which lasted from 8:10 a.m. until 
noon. Beside his k^pi he placed a black leather wallet full of papers, 
and he accompanied his remarks with a continual nodding of the head. 

His forehead was wrinkled, his eyebrows were contracted, and his eyes 
peered through slits between his puffy eyelids. His cheeks were sallow, 
and he spoke almost inaudibly and in a weak, monotonous pitch of voice, 
which produced a soporific effect upon those who were not able to distin- 
guish his words, but who were within hearing of his voice. This mon©- 
logue, with hardly a break, except when the clerk read the various docu- 


ments Mercier presented to the court, lasted nearly four hours, with ten 
minutes' suspension at eleven o'clock, when there was a general feeling 
that the witness was going to prove, as the Dreyfusards predicted, an utter 

At the outset of General Mercier' s testimony he prepared the court for 
a war scare by declaring that the Emperor of Germany personally tcok an 
active part in organizing espionage; and then, later, when he defended his 
action in communicating the secret dossier to the court-martial of 1894, 
he said : 

" I no longer have reason to keep silent, and I am going to accomplish 
what I consider my duty. In 1894 the diplomatic situation was perilous. 
M. Hanotaux (then Minister of Foreign Affairs) had indicated this. ]\I. 
Casimir-Perier had spoken before the Criminal Chamber about the unusual 
step taken by Count von Munster. He also exposed the somewhat unusual 
way by which he could double himself into an official personage and a pri- 
vate personage, later giving Count von Munster information that was at 
first refused him. 

" But M. Casimir-Perier amended his deposition, saying he had not 
said that the same day M. Dupuy and myself rsmained from 8 in the 
evening until 12 :30 o'clock in his private office at the Elysee awaiting the 
result of telegraphic communications between the Emperor of Germany 
and Count von Munster. We remained four hours and a half waiting to 
see whether peace or war would result from the exchange of programs." 

Here M. Casimir-Perier shook his head and hand in emphatic denial 
of General Mercier's statement. 

General Mercier continued: 

" I had been warned during the afternoon that the situation was very 
grave. Count von Munster had an order from his sovereign to ask for 
his passports if his demands were not conceded. I was prepared to give 
the order for mobilization. You see, we were within an ace of war. It 
was only at 12:30 that M. Casimir-Perisr notified me that Count von 
Munster had accepted the insertion of a somewhat vague note declaring 
the Ambassador was not involved." 

M. Casimir-Perier here again made a repudiating gesture, and General 
Mercier continued to explain that this was the reacon for his action re- 
garding the secret dossier. 


AVliile lie was under examination, General Mercier asked Colonel Jou- 
aust to allow him to present a document showing how an espionage sys- 
tem was organized in France by Colonel von Schwartzkoppen, the former 
German military attach(5 at Paris. The document referred to the fortifi- 
cations of the Meuse. General Mercier then entered into an explanation 
tending to prove that von Schwartzkoppen was at the head of the German 
espionage in France. The witness afterward had the clerk read the letter 

containing the words "Cette canaille de D " (That scoundrel of a 

D ). 

In the mean while Dreyfus watched j\Iercier through his eyeglasses 
apparently unmoved. Dreyfus had listened to General Mercier's pitiless 
arraignment that morning, until he approached the end of his deposition, 
with sphinx-like rigidity of features, but watching Mercier like a cat 
watching a mouse. No one would have suspected the volcano slumbering 
within Dreyfus, which burst forth when human flesh and blood could 
stand it no longer. The only sign of the smothered fire within was his 
heaving bosom and the parching of his lips and palate, which he occasion- 
ally moistened with his tongue. 

A casual observer might have missed these indications and have imag- 
ined that he was an image cut in stone, with the eyes fixed on Mercier. 
But, when, at last, his feelings obtained the mastery, and he sprang to his 
feet and faced his accuser, man to man, and flatly denied the charges, 
already known, which the general reiterated, one appreciated the depth of 
his previously suppressed emotions; and Mercier, who, startled, had 
jumped to his feet, at the ringing sound of Dreyfus's voice, from the chair 
in which he was seated while giving his evidence, recoiled before the ter- 
rible look Dreyfus threw at him, and stood aghast wondering whether the 
prisoner was going to spring upon him. 

At the end of his evidence General Mercier said he believed that 
the only motive of Dreyfus's treason was that Dreyfus had no feeling of 

This utterance brought forth hisses from the audience, whose blood 
had been sent up to fever heat by the witness's savage attacks on 

General Mercier, not heeding the hisses, closed by remarking : 

"If the least doubt crossed my mind. Messieurs, I would be the first 


to declare it to you and say before you, to Captain Dreyfus: 'I am mis- 
taken, but in good faith.'" 

Then Dreyfus electrified the spectators. He jumped to his feet, as 
though the words had galvanized him into new life, and shouted with a 
voice which resounded through the hall like a trumpet note : 

"That is what you ought to say ! " 

The audience burst into a wild cheer, whereupon the ushers called for 

General Mercier then stammered : 

"I would come and say: ' Captain Dreyfus, I was mistaken, in good 
faith, and I come with the same good faith to admit it, and I will do all 
in human power to repair the frightful error.'" 

The prisoner then shouted : 

" Wliy don't you then ? That is your duty ! " 

Colonel Jouaust and the other members of the court-martial in the 
mean time had risen and seized the two men, while the court rang with 
the cheers of the spectators. 

General Mercier, after a pause, when the excitement had partially 
calmed, said: 

"Well, no. My conviction since 1894 has not suffered the slight- 
est weakening. It is fortified by the deepest study of the dossier, 
and also by the inanity of the means resorted to for the purpose of 
proving the innocence of the condemned man of 1894, in spite of 
the evidence accumulated and in spite of the millions of money ex- 
pended. " 

The witness referred to the famous "syndicate," which Scheurer-Kest- 
ner and Zola were accused of fathering. 

"There is a syndicate," wrote Zola at the time; "it is composed of all 
honest and intelligent persons throughout the civilized world, who have 
given careful study to this case, who believe in elementary justice, in law, 
and in the rules of evidence." 

Colonel Jouaust then said : " Have you finished ? " 

General Mercier replied: "Yes." 

General Mercier, when he had finished his testimony, according to gen. 
eral opinion had said really nothing, and had proved nothing. The over- 
whelming proofs he was to have thrown down before the members of the 


court-martial like a bombshell failed to appear, and lie left the court dis- 

. Mercier had played the well-worn war scare, but the effeot must have 
been very discouraging to him, for his hearers listened, without stirring a 
muscle, to his story of how France was on the threshold of a war with 

Colonel Jouaust then announced that the sessions of the court-martial 
would be resumed August 14th. 

M. Casimir-Perier thereupon arose and said : 

" After the deposition of General Mercier I shall ask the court to hear 
me, and I would prefer it to be in confrontation with him." 

This announcemeiiit caused a sensation. Then followed a thrilling 
demonstration against General Mercier. As he tutned to leave the court 
the audience rose en masse and hissed and cursed him, those at the back 
of the court standing on chairs and benches in order better to hound him 
down. The gendarmes placed themselves between the general and the 
audience, which showed a strong disposition to maltreat the former Min- 
ister of War. Though the general was cheered by the crowd outside the 
court-room on his departure from the Lyc^e, none of them had witnessed 
the scene in court or listened to Mercier's weak brief. Moreover, the 
inhabitants of Eennes have always been anti-Dreyfusard. Counter-shouts 
of " Vive la Eepublique ! " and " Vive la Justice ! " were raised by those on 
both sides. The gendarmes, however, cleared the streets, and the crowd 
quietly dispersed. 


Chapter XIX. 

A COWARDLY attempt to assassinate Maitre Labori, leading counsel 
for the defence of Dreyfus, was made on Monday, August 14th. 

The sitting of the court-martial that was pending seemed big with 
emotion. M. Casimir-Perier was to be confronted with General Mercier, 
and all looked forward with impatience to the moment when the great 
advocate M. Labori, who had revealed himself at the Zola trial as per- 
haps the most expert and formidable cross-examiner of the French bar, 
was to exercise his incomparable intellect against the mysterious general 
whose action in 1894 precipitated upon his country such a host of woes. 

Five minutes, ten minutes went by. M. Demange was in his place, 
but the chair of his colleague was still vacant. This absence was strange, 
and was generally commented upon. 

Hitherto M. Labori had been very punctual. But he must be merely 
delayed at his house, it was thought. He might have slept late, or he 
was collecting his notes. However, conjectures were cut short by the 
entrance of the judges, and Colonel Jouaust, after introducing Dreyfus, 
asked attention for a few words on the unseemly demonstrations of whicJi 
the court- room on August 12th was the scene. He would not tolerate, 
he declared, manifestations of any sort; if need be, he would expel the 
disturbers of the peace, or even clear the liall. 

"If," he continued, "we have given a large space to the journalists, 
it is in order that as large a number as possible of readers may follow the 
discussions here, which, however, arouse perhaps too much interest in the 
public. I hope I shall not be obliged to take action against the press." 

It was noted then that for the first time the hall contained a number 
of gendarmes distributed along the benclies. The measure seemed natural 
enough. The intervention of the president had been anticipated, and was 
generally approved. 


Yet still M. Labori did not come. 

Suddenly there was a hubbub at the entrance door. The tall form of 
M. Taunay, of the judicial police, was seen clambering upon a bench, and 
then this announcement rang through the court: 

"Quick; a doctor! M. Labori is wounded." 

It was like a pistol-shot in the court itself. 

The faces of half the audience became white with consternation. 

Several persons rushed out, among them doctors and surgeons who 
were present. One of them was M. Paul Reclus. 

Every one looked at his neighbor in dismay. Cries of " Ah ! les mis- 
arables ! " and other expressions of the general emotion arose all about the 

And then, in the midst of the general distress, M. Demange rose in 
his place and said : 

"Monsieur le President, painful news has just been spread abroad. 
It is said that my colleague M. Labori has been wounded." Colonel 
Jouaust replied, "It is deeply regrettable," while M. Demange went on to 
ask that the sitting should be suspended pending further information. 

It was just on the stroke of seven o'clock. The excitement at this 
moment was extreme. It was a difficult thing to scrutinize the heart, but, 
if any of the ordinary outward signs of human feeling are true indications 
of the inner workings of the soul, there were not two-score persons in that 
hall who were not profoundly shocked by the news which had just rung 
through the house. 

M. Labori, who had the day before received two letters threatening to 
kill him, but who had paid as little heed to them as to the scores of oth- 
ers which he had received during the last two years, left his house during 
the morning of August 14th, at six o'clock, alone, his wife, who attends 
all the sittings of the court, intending to follow him a few moments later. 
On the way he met Colonel Picquart and M. Gast, the Colonel's cou- 
sin. The three had passed the bridge of La Barbotiere, and, leaving the 
tow-path, had arrived on the Quai Richemont near the bridge across the 
Vilaine, when a pistol shot was heard behind them, and M. Labori, ut- 
tering the familiar French ejaculation, " Oh, la la ! " tottered and fell. 

He had received a bullet in the back. 

The details which follow were obtained from Colonel Picquart and M. 


Gast. Their first thought was for their companion. A few moments were 
therefore lost iu assisting ]\Iaitre Labori. ]\Ioreover, neither Colonel Pic- 
quart nor his friend was armed. With a scrupulous correctness intelligi- 
bje enough at a moment when the slightest violation of the laws of the 
land might entail the most serious inconveniences, but with a loyalty which 
the present event has proved to be Quixotic, and which they profoundly 
regret at this hour, they were without revolvers, in spite of the threaten- 
ing letters which the colonel has never ceased to receive for many months. 
Had they been armed they might have easily killed the assailant. 

The would-be murderer, darting off at full speed, had, however, already 
put one hundred yards between himself and his victim. Yet as soon as 
Maitre Labori had been laid out on the pavement both his companions 
started in pursuit. There were workingmen, early risers, near by, who 
heard the shot and could help to identify him, but not one of them made 
the slightest effort to capture him. M. Gast is a solid, somewhat heavily 
buHt man, who soon found pursuit futile, and even Colonel Picquart, al- 
though he is more active, and although, in ]\I. Cast's words, he "ran like 
a deer," had to abandon the chase. 

The assailant had dashed along the river unarrested by the slightest 
obstacle, human or other, until he met on the banks of the Yilaiue a com- 
pany of workingmen unloading a barge. Seeing a man running toward 
them, and hearing the cries of " Assassin ! " which had followed him from 
afar, they sought to capture him. But aiming his revolver he cried: 

"Leave me alone! I have just killed Dreyfus." 

It was an "open sesame," and the man rushed on and gained the open 
fields, making in the direction of Chateaugiron. The forest of Eennes lay 
there across country rich in lurking-places, a far finer refuge for a hunted 
criminal than the clear spaces of the little wood where, in Zola's novel, 
"Paris," the Anarchist Sal vat is surrounded and tracked by the police. 

The would-be assassin, who, according to the impression of Colonel 
Picquart, was not yet thirty, was described as red-haired ; he wore a sliort 
black coat and a sort of round, white skull-cap, capable, however. Colonel 
Picquart said, of being rolled down like a turban upon the brow and ears. 
He sped on into the country, finally followed by no one, left fairly to him- 
self to choose his lair. 

Colonel Picquart, who had given up the pursuit and returned to his 


friend, found Maitre Labori still Ijing on the pavement; but his wife had 
arrived, and she was holding his head and shoulders on her knees, while 
with a little Japanese fan, hastily snatched up as she had left the house, 
she fanned the handsome, pallid face of her husband, 

A half -hour passed before a shutter was brought, and it was almost as 
long before a doctor arrived. Four soldiers had been ordered to the spot 
with the shutter to transport Maitre Labori to his house. He had not 
lost consciousness, and he spoke to his wife of the trial, urging her imme- 
diately to inform the court and to have the proceedings interrupted. 

When, at the suspension of the sitting, IMaitre Demange drove to the 
house, he found his friend still partially stunned, but not in pain. 

"If on vieiLx," said Maitre Labori to his colleague "je vais peut-etre en 
crever, mats Dreyfus est sauve. " (" Old man, I shall perhaps die from it, 
but Dreyfus is saved ! ") 

The wound was at first thought to be fatal. It was feared that the 
bullet had perforated a lung and in its passage perhaps affected the spinal 
cord. Later, more accurate details were known. The bullet entered the 
back a little to the right of the backbone, on a level with the fifth or 
sixth rib. The state of the wound for the moment prevented surgical 
search for the bullet. 

Maitre Labori had only just recovered from typhoid fever, during 
which he was for a time in a critical state. His ardent, nervous, high- 
strung organism, wrought up as it was to a pitch of terrible tension by his 
anxieties over work in the Dreyfus affair, was in an extremely unsatisfac- 
tory condition for combating this fresh shock. 

The worst news would have surprised nobody at Eennes. M. Wal- 
deck-Eousseau, end the Minister of Justice, and the whole world had to 
wait forty-eight hours at least for any certainty as to his real condition, 
and then, to the intense relief of all right-minded men, the doctors an- 
nounced that the wound was not mortal. 

There was a terribly suggestive timeliness in that crime, and the course 
taken by the day's proceedings threw this fact into the light with over- 
whelming force. 

Were the fates combining against Dreyfus they could not have armed 
among mortals a more efficient agent of their designs than the still un- 
known man who shot Maitre Labori in the early hours of the morning, as 


he was making for the court-room himself to endeavor to riddle with 
shot and shatter with his invective and irony and scorn the last argu- 
ments of the public accuser Mercier. 

It was a master-stroke. The one man indispensable was suddenly 
thrown hors de combat just at the moment when most was expected of 

With Maitre Labori absent the bottom seemed to have dropped out of 
the defence. 

The examination of General Mercier which took place the same day 
was one of the weakest exhibitions of forensic ingenuity and presence of 
mind which it was possible to conceive. The witnesses, General Mercier, 
M. Cavaignac, General Billot, and the rest, had held the floor as did the 
officers their predecessors in the trial of 1894. M. Cavaignac delivered 
himself of an impassioned diatribe quite as if he were at the tribune of the 
chamber. The prisoner was left almost without defence. 

Maitre Demange was, no doubt, a great lawyer, and it may well be 
believed that he was under the impression of the terrible event of that 
morning. But his whole conception of his rOle seemed to be to reply to 
Dreyfus's adversaries en Hoc in a final address to the court. But he did 
not possess the qualities of Maitre Labori — his astonishing readiness in 
repartee, his quick-wittedness in general, his admirable enthusiasm, his 
courage, his range of eloquence, his unrivalled knowledge of the case, and, 
above all, his simply incomparable powers of cross-examination. 

The formal, old-style methods of Maitre Demange stood him in sad 
stead. It was the great day, the critical momer t. It was the day dreaded 
by all the adversaries of Dreyfus ; the day to which General Mercier and 
M. Cavaignac had looked forward with consternation. They had found 
in this terrible tragedy, by the initiation and intervention of no on j knows 
what influence, that deus ex 7iiachma which in the old drama solves prob- 
lems with a timeliness that has become proverbial. And then, to cap all, 
the general called on Maitre Labori to proffer his sympathy. 

The Nationalict Deputy for Eennes M. le H^riss^, signed the same 
day the following proclamation aL Mayor of Eennes : 

"Dear fellow-citizens: An abominabb outrage, the author of which 
cannot claim to repres ;nt any party, has just dishonored our dear city of 
Rennes. You will not allow yourselves to be affected by an act of mad- 


ness which can only serve the interests of the enemies of the work of jus- 
tice and truth which, with their patriotism and their robust good sense, 
the members of the court-martial are called upon to accomplish. Eesist 
provocations from whatever quarter, preserve that dignified calm which 
you have all along maintained. You will thus have deserved well of 
France and of the Eepublic, and served the good name of our old Breton 
town. " 

General Zurlinden, Colonel Jouaust, and M. Casimir-Perier called on 
Maitre Labori to know how he was getting on. 

Several journalists said to have associations with the persons arrested 
in Paris, among them a member of the staff of M. Cassagnac's paper, 
Z'Autorite, were arrested at Eennes. 

Maitre Labori is young, fair, handsome, and full of lusty life and high 
spirits. His talents as a speaker are not of the highest order; but no 
other member of the Paris bar knows better how to use law to defeat its 
object. He can drive a motor car through the Code. Until he pleaded 
for Zola his luck was uninterrupted. He then had an attack of typhoid 
fever, which greatly weakened him and forced him to neglect business. 
The Zola affair was a great advertisement, but it brought him no direct 
profit and created for him endless enemies. He refused the handsome fee 
the novelist offered ; nor does he accept pecuniary reward from Dreyfus. 

Labori is proud of his wife's beauty. She is equally proud of his good 
looks and forensic talents, and loses no opportunity to hear him plead. 
She is an Australian, and received her education as a pianiste in London. 
She became a player at concerts and made the acquaintance of the de- 
formed but highly gifted Eussian pianist, Pachmann, married him, had two 
children, and then fell in love with Labori. The passion was mutual. 
She and Pachmann were divorced, and then she married Labori. The chil- 
dren live with her and find a devoted stepfather in him. 

Madame Labori had attended all the public sittings of the Eennes 
court-martial. Her beauty is beyond dispute. She is a striking blonde, 
and, though her path has not been always strewn with roses, she expresses 
the joy of life in splendid health and a satisfied heart. 


Chapter XXX, 


The shooting of Maitre Labori took all the life out of the session of the 
court-martial, August 14th. 

On the opening of the court, Maitre Demange in a few words officially 
informed Colonel Jouaust of the attack on Maitre Labori, and requested a 
suspension of the sitting, to which Colonel Jouaust unhesitatingly agreed, 
adjoining the court until 7:15 o'clock. 

Dreyfus must undoubtedly have been profoundly moved by the attack 
on his champion, who for all he knew might be dead or dying, yet the 
prisoner maintained the same immovability as hitherto, and did not give 
the slightest indication of his emotions. 

In the course of the short suspension of the proceedings M. Jaures, 
the Socialist leader, who was in court, remarked that the arrests made in 
Paris for rioting the previous day had for their sole object to forestall a 
St. Bartholomew's massacre of the Dreyfusards, and that the attempted 
murder of M. Labori was one of the acts of the projected massacre. 

Others in the audience engaged in violent altercations over the at- 
tempted murder. M. Mercier, editor of the Gaulois, expressed the opin- 
ion that all the newspapers ought to regard themselves as responsible for 
the outrage, whereupon Mme. Severine loudly protested, saying : 

" No ; it is you who ought to be held responsible for what has hap- 

The clamor finally became so violent that gendarmes were forced to 
separate the combatants and take away the tickets of all those present. 

On the resumption of the sitting, Colonel Jouaust referred to the out- 
rage, and declared he was personally deeply moved. 

Mattre Demange announced that, though his colleague's wound was 
not so serious as at first supposed, it would be impossible for Maitre La- 
bori to participate in the proceedings. 


General ]\Iercier was then confronted with M. Casimir-Perier, the 
former President of France. The latter declared that Mercier's story, told 
on the witness-stand on August 12th, of the imminence of war between 
Germany and France in 1894, was grossly exaggerated, and complained of 
Mercier's action in moving 60,000 troops to the frontier without consult- 
ing him. 

When General Mercier was recalled in reply to the president of the 
court, he reiterated his belief that Major Count Esterhazy, in spite of 
the latter's own declaration, was not the author of the bordereau, which 
the witness claimed was written on tracing paper, and was found in an 

M. Casimir-Perier was then called to the witness stand, but the 
thoughts of every one in court were directed to the outrage on Maitre 
Labori, and the evidence was followed listlessly. Moreover, Maitre La- 
bor! was not there to kindle the hidden fires in both men, and they, 
in addition, were weighed down by the tragedy which had just oc- 

As it had been M. Labori's intention to take General Mercier in hand, 
M. Demange, associate counsel, was quite unprepared for the task; the 
few questions the latter put were practically of little effect, and General 
Mercier escaped cheaply. M. Demange also was deeply affected by the 
attempt to assassinate his colleague, and was quite unable to do himself 

The president of the court asked M. Casimir-Perier to explain the cir- 
cumstances of the confession Dreyfus is alleged to have made to Captain 
Lebrun-Eenault. ]M. Casimir-Perier persisted in his statement of August 
12th, that he had never received any confidences of this character from 
Captain Lebrun-Eenault. He added that M. Dupuy, the then Premier, 
was present when Captain Lebrun-Eenault called at the Elys^e, Paris. 
"Moreover," said M. Casimir-Perier, "here is a letter from M. Dupuy, 
which I ask may be read." 

The letter asserted that Captain Lebrun-Eenault, when questioned by 
M. Dupuy, replied that General Mercier had sent him to the President to 
receive a dressing-down for his indiscreet disclosures to the Figaro. 

General Mercier here interposed, saying: 

" Captain Lebrun-Eenault spoke to me in regard to the confessions in 


the presence of General Gonse, who will testify thereto. It was then that 
I ordered him to go to the President of the Republic. " 

Regarding General Mercier's declaration on August 12th, on the wit- 
ness stand, M. Casimir-Perier said : 

" General Mercier had no right whatever to intervene in a diplomatic 
conversation. I would have prevented such interference. It was I alone 
who conferred with the minister, and I declare that the impression I 
derived from that conversation was one of complete calm, otherwise the 
incident woidd not have been closed by the framing of a note. "We had 
no telegram from Berlin that evening. If there had been any news in re- 
gard to the matter on the evening of the 6th, we should not have waited 
until the 8th to publish the note. There was not a despatch addressed to 
a friendly power relative to the incident. The incident has been magni- 
fied. Besides, in the event of diplomatic complications, the president 
would have communicated with the Minister of Foreign Affairs." 

General Mercier replied that he went to the Elys^e Palace as Minister 
of War. He said General de Boisdeffre could testify in regard to the or- 
ders received. 

M. Demange seized upon this declaration and insisted that General 
Mercier repeat the statement that he had given orders to General de Bois- 
deffre on the 6th, relative to mobilization. 

General de Boisdeffre was actually out of Paris on January 6, 1895, 
for on that day General Gonse wrote him to inform him of Lebrun- 
Renault's tale about Dreyfus's alleged confession. 

M. Casimir-Perier, resuming his testimony, said he did not desire to 
reply to certain of General Mercier's insinuations. 

"I do not wish to answer them," said the witness; "the circumstances 
are too sad and too tragic for me to desire to envenom the discussion. I 
am master of myself and of my conscience. I would only state that Gen- 
eral Mercier has made every effort to mix me as deeply as possible in this 
affair. But I have remained aloof." 

The former President then complained of the incorrect behavior of his 
subordinate toward the chief of the state. "As an instance," he said, 
"General Mercier undertook to shorten the term of service of 60,000 men 
without consulting me, thus lacking in the respect he owed to the chief of 
the state." 


M. Casimir-Perier next protested against the assertions made by Gen- 
eral Mercier in regard to the role adopted by the chief of the state in this 
affair, whereupon the general interjected the statement that he had spoken 
of the attitude assumed by M. Casimir-Perier, because lie had sworn to 
tell the whole truth. 

M. Demange asked General Mercier if he had explained to the Cabinet 
how he reconciled the relations of cause and effect, and the patriotic emo- 
tion aroused by the treason with the communication of the secret docu- 
ments to the court-martial. 

The general, in reply, repeated his statement of August 12th, as his 
hypothesis of the situation. 

Counsel asked General Mercier why the explanations of the secret 
dossier were not included in the dossier relating to the revision. 

The general replied that he considered these explanations were given 
for his personal use, and that was why he destroyed the document. 

At this M. Demange expressed a sense of astonishment, and asked 
General Mercier if he did not have reasons for suppressing the docu- 

The witness repudiated the suggestion. 

Dreyfus at this point rose from his seat and asked leave to explain in 
regard to the assertion that he had traced on a card the itinerary of a cer- 
tain journey of the General Staff. Both the itinerary and journey, he 
asserted, were purely fictitious. 

General Billot, former Minister of War, was the next witness. He 
was in uniform, sat with crossed legs, and gave his evidence in a conver- 
sational manner. Like everybody else, he added, he had some knowledge 
of the Dreyfus affair before taking the war portfolio. While feeling deeply 
on the subject, he remained aloof from the matter until he returned to the 
Cabinet. In the early days of his ministry, the witness continued, M. 
Scheurer-Kestner (a former vice-president of the Senate) asked him whether 
he ought not to investigate the Dreyfus affair. M. Scheurer-Kestner, the 
general pointed out, had made similar representations to M. de Freycinet, 
and received tlie same reply from both, that neither of them was very 
conversant with the affair. 

General Billot dwelt at length upon the action taken by M. Scheurer- 
Kestner, to whom he said he recommended prudence. M. Scheurer-Kest- 


ner finally communicated to General Billot his conviction of the innocence 
of Dreyfus, but the general found the evidence insufficient, and asked him 
to investigate the matter further. 

General Billot then dealt with the role of Colonel Picquart, whom, he 
said, he holds in the highest esteem. "He is intelligent," said the wit- 
ness, "and gave me valuable information about the organization of a 
neighboring army and its artillery. This information showed the neces- 
sity of continuing the reforms in our artillery commenced by that great 
initiator. General Mercier." 

" I, who am neither an engineer nor an expert in handwriting," added 
General Billot, "saw the grand work he accomplished in that direction." 

After this General Billot referred to Colonel Picquart's proposition to 
entrap Esterhazy, whom he suspected, but General Billot forbade this. 
He added that Colonel Picquart always acted without authorization. 

The former Minister of "JVar next referred to the eminent service 
which Colonel Picquart rendered to the army, leading to his being entrusted 
with a " confidential mission to the East and afterward to Tunis." He 
energetically protested against the allegation that he had desired to send 
Colonel Picquart to a place from which he would never return. 

M. Demange then invited General Billot to explain the statements of 
MM. Barthou and Poincare, former Cabinet ministers, that the general 
was once so doubtful of the guilt of Dreyfus that he did not sleep for sev- 
eral nights. 

General Billot acknowledged that the statements were true. 

There was great sensation when M. Demange mentioned the opinion 
expressed by M. Barthou that General Billot had been forewarned in re- 
gard to the forgery of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. The general acknowl- 
edged that the Henry forgery was among the factors arousing his doubts. 

M. Cavaignac, former Minister of War, then testified. He said he 
was the first Cabinet minister to assume responsibility for the Dreyfus 
affair. He had closely followed the inquiry of the Court of Cassation, 
and, he continued, still desired to associate himself with the responsibility 
of those who, in 1894, protected the country and the army against treason. 

Continuing, the witness said that among the principal points upon 
which be based his conviction was the confession to Captain Lebrun- 


Renault, in support of which contention he quoted a paseage from an 
alleged letter of Dreyfus, which was in reality part of General Gonse's 
report to the Minister of War on Colonel Du Paty de Clam's report of 
the alleged confession. 

The witness also said he found additional proofs of the prisoner's guilt 
in the technical character of the bordereau, and thought the bordereau 
alone established the fact that treason had emanated from the bureau of 
the General Staff, and from an officer who was able to secure all the in- 
formation desired. 

During M. Cavaignac's arraignment Dreyfus was nervous and agitated. 

M. Cavaignac next discussed the denials of Dreyfus, and said his ex- 
cuse of lapse of memory was inadmissible. Dreyfus, he claimed, was 
aware of the changes in the Bridge Corps belonging to the artillery, and 
also of the details of the concentration. Why, then, the witness asked, 
had he denied this knowledge? 

It was impossible, according to M. Cavaignac, to believe that Ester- 
hazy was a traitor, even admitting that the bordereau was written by him. 
Esterhazy, he insisted, could only have acted as an intermediary or an 

Colonel Jouaust asked M. Cavaignac to explain the discovery of the 
Henry forgery, and the witness repeated the statements he had already 
made on the subject. 

"The Henry forgery," replied M. Cavaignac, "as alleged, was in order 
to secure a revision of the case by the Court of Cassation, but was not even 
alluded to. This forgery, therefore, should remain outside the scope of 
the questions submitted to this court-martial. This is my opinion." 

Counsel for the prisoner then questioned M. Cavaignac in regard to his 
statement that General de Boisdeffre was absent from Paris on November 
6th, when General Mercier declares he was there. The witness replied 
that General de Boisdeffre was certainly absent on the date. 

Colonel Jouaust then told Dreyfus to rise, and asked him if he had 
any remarks to make upon the evidence. The prisoner replied : 

" I am astounded that the man who produced in the tribunal of the 
Chamber the Henry forgery can come here and base his convictions of my 
culpability on matters which the Court of Cassation has already disposed 
of." [Great sensation.] 


Dreyfus did not create a very favorable impression when he made this 
statement, which was delivered in a declamatory fashion, with his hand on 
his heart. 

The speech of M. Cavaignac, however, certainly appeared to make an 
impression on his hearers. 

General Zurlinden, also a former Minister of War, was the next wit- 
ness. He began by pointing out the obligation resting upon those direct- 
ing espionage to do everything possible to save those serving them. He 
then declared he still regarded the bordereau as being decisive proof of 
the guilt of Dreyfus, and said it wovdd be impossible for those who 
were prosecuting Dreyfus to be acting from esprit de corps, as it would 
be unjust to say they approved the "odious act just committed in the 

General Zurlinden then traversed the old ground, and declared that 
nothing, not even Esterhazy's confessions, had occurred to change his 

The reiteration by General Zurlinden of his belief that Dreyfus wrote 
the bordereau created a lively excitement. 

M. Demange suggested that if Colonel Fabre had not thought of ex- 
amining the handwriting of the probationers the bordereau would have 
been eternally buried in the archives of the Ministry of War, "and," he 
remarked, "if this is the case, it must be evidenced there was nothing in 
the bordereau which indicated Dreyfus." 

General Zurlinden, in a troubled voice, acknowledged this fact, and 
tried to explain. M. Demange, however, got General Zurlinden to admit 
that it was not until after the condemnation that the study of the bor- 
dereau seemed to indicate that it was the work of a probationer. 

In reply to further question. General Zurlinden said that in order to 
know the whole truth in regard to the bordereau, they must have the four 
notes therein mentioned. They must be secured. 

At this point Dreyfus interjected : 

" I associate myself with those words, Colonel. I also desire the truth. 
I only ask for the truth." 

These statements caused excitement in court. 

General Chanoine, a former Minister of War, next testified. He 
briefly affirmed his belief in the culpability of the prisoner. 


The appearance of M. Hanotaiix, the former Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, who followed, reawakened the interest of the audience. 

M. Hanotaux declared he had nothing to add to his evidence given 
before the Court of Cassation. He said he never had cognizance, either as 
a minister or as a private individual, of any secret dossier. 

The former minister denied the allegation that he had told M. Monod 
he believed Dreyfus was guilty. He was astounded at M. Monod's 
statement, but the latter was evidently hazy in his mind regarding the 
matter, as he had given three versions of the conversation. 

M. Demange inquired whether M. Hanotaux was aware of the uncer- 
tainties connected with the translation of the telegram, dated November 
2, 1894. 

The former Foreign Minister replied that uncertainty was the rule in 
such cases. He was only aware of the one drawn up in the Foreign Office, 
which alone was communicated to the War Minister. 

The depositions of General Zurlinden, General Chanoine, and M. Han- 
otaux were listened to closely. The mass of evidence was directed against 
Dreyfus. The lack of trenchant criticism, owing to the absence of the 
defence's right arm, naturally left an impression unfavorable to the pris- 



Chapter XXXI, 


Theee was no session of the court-martial on August 15tb, that being 
Assumption Day. But the trial was resumed on August 16th, Major 
Carriere, the representative of the Government, having refused to agree to 
the adjournment of the case until August 21st, as asked for by M. De- 
mange and Captain Dreyfus, owing to the murderous attack upon Maitre 

The feature of the day's proceedings was the story of the sufferings of 
Dreyfus on Devil's Island. 

M. Guerin, the former Minister of Justice, was the first witness. He 
only repeated the evidence he had given before the Court of Cassation. 

Ex-Minis ter Guerin, in reciting his evidence, said that at the end of 
October, after a Cabinet council, the Premier invited him to his room, 
where General Mercier joined them, and explained that for some time 
past documents had been missing from the Headquarters Staff, and tliat, 
in consequence of inquiries made, suspicion had attached to Dreyfus. 
General ]\l8rcier added that he w^as convinced Dreyfus was the culprit. 
The general said he founded his conviction on three facts: 

First, the bordereau, the author of which was undiscoverable until 
Colonel Fabre, on returning from the manoeuvres, immediately after he 
saw the document, exclaimed: 

" Why, it is Dreyf us's handwriting. " 

Secondly, the nature of the documents enumerated in the bordereau, 
in conjunction with Dreyfus's employment in the different departments, 
proved exclusively, according to General Mercier, that Dreyfus alone had 
cognizance of all these papers, and he alone could have disclosed them. 

Thirdly, the dictation test and Dreyfus's perturbation at the time. 
This referred to the dictation given by Du Paty de Clam to Dreyfus a few 
moments before his arrest. 


General Mercier, M. Guerin tlien said, in consequence of these con- 
victions declared his intention to ask the Cabinet to authorize the prose- 
cution of Dreyfus, A special Cabinet meeting was held on November 1, 
1894, to consider the matter. The witness forgot whether M. Casimir- 
Perier or M. Dupuy presided. General Mercier handed the Cabinet noth- 
ing but the bordereau. After the Minister of War had related his reasons 
for his suspicions, the Cabinet unanimously authorized the prosecution of 

M. Hanotaux alone made some reserves or diplomatic objections, based 
on the place where the document was found. But it was agreed that, in 
the event of court-martialling Dreyfus, measures should be taken to pre- 
vent mention of the name of any power, 

From that day the witness had learned nothing whatever of the case, 
personally, as it was in the hands of the military authorities, M, Guerin, 
at that time, had never heard of the secret documents, and none was ever 
communicated to the Cabinet, He only first knew during the Zola trial 
of the existence of the alleged secret documents, and only learned of the 
alleged confession of Dreyfus to Captain Lebrvm-Eenault from the news- 
papers. General Mercier never mentioned the confession to the Cabinet. 

Colonel Jouaust then questioned the witness, saying : 

"M. Gobert, an expert, has declared you summoned him to your office 
to give you information about the Dreyfus affair. Do you remember the 
occurrences? Did he not say, on entering, pointing to the clock: 

" 'Monsieur le Ministre de Justice, I fear lest at this hour a grave mis- 
take is being committed ' ? 

"Is it not a fact that you did not reply, but, when M. Gobert was 
leaving, recommended him to observe extreme caution, as the Government 
was desirous of keeping the treason secret, dreading particularly indiscre- 
tions upon the part of the press, and, above all, upon the part of the Libre 
Parole, as the suspected officer was a Jew ? " 

M. Guerin replied: 

" I cannot affirm whether or not I received M. Gobert, but what I can 
affirm is that if he came I did not employ the 'language mentioned, and 
I made none of the statements he attributes to me." 

M. Lebon, the former Minister of the Colonies, then testified in jus- 
tification of his instructions to treat Dreyfus rigorously, declaring that the 


extreme stringency only dated from the time he thought an attempt would 
be made to rescue the prisoner. 

M. Lebon, in testifying regarding his treatment of the prisoner, said 
that when the Cabinet was asked to intervene in favor of a revision he 
thought the executive should not interfere with the judiciary. 

"On my soul and conscience," declared M. Lebon dramatically, "I 
say I regard the measures I took relative to the prisoner on the He du 
Diable as warranted, and if I had to repeat them I would not hesitate." 

He admitted that on October 6, 1896, Dreyfus was put in irons and 
kept in them for two months. At night a lamp was lighted over his head 
that the jailer might watch the expression of his face. Myriads of tropi- 
cal insects were thus attracted, which nearly drove the prisoner insane. 
When Dreyfus learned that he was placed in irons he wrote to the com- 
mandant of the iles du Salut penitentiary, in which he said, among other 
things : 

" I would be grateful to you to let me know of what fault I have been 
guilty since I have been here. I thought I had conformed rigorously to 
all the rules. I carried out every order to the letter." 

M. Lebon then explained the iseasons for the rigorous measures 
against Dreyfus as already set forth in an earlier chapter. He said a cer- 
tain telegram sent to French Guiana disappeared. It was traced out of 
France, but immediately it reached the English lines it disappeared, 
showing, the witness said, that efforts were being made to enable the pris- 
oner to evade the regulations. Eigorous, even painful, measures were 
therefore taken to prevent his escape. M. Lebon therefore issued orders 
that, if necessary, the prisoner was to be fired upon. 

In October, 1896, a sham attempt was made by the officials of the 
Guiana police to rescue Dreyfus. When their boat reached the lie du 
Diable a loud noise was made. Dreyfus awoke. His jailor immediately 
levelled his revolver at the prisoner's head. Dreyfus turned his face to 
the wall and lay very still. 

Continuing, M. Lebon said he also issued orders that only copies of 
the letters addressed to the prisoners should be delivered to him, the orig- 
inals being retained. The witness was informed, August 19th, that an 
American vessel passed the lies du Salut, and orders were then issued 
that Dreyfus was to be shot on the slightest alarm. 


Referring to the "Weyler forgery, M. Lebon said he frankly admitted 
that he believed in its authenticity, as did Colonel Picquart, until long 
after its production. M. Lebon next referred to the numerous rough 
drafts the prisoner made of his letters before finally dispatching them. 

At this point, M. Demange interrupted the witness and said : 

"1 pass from a surprise to surprise. August 14th, it was a witness 
playing the part of prosecutor. To-day, one witness defends himself by 
saying his conscience is tranquil. He is welcome to a tranquil con-' 
science. But ask him if he finds it surprising that this man, alone out 
there, on a lost island, should have poured out his soul on paper? I ask 
again, why you allowed the forged Weyler letter, in which a handwriting 
was indicated, to reach Dreyfus ? " 

To this M. Lebon replied : 

" We could not give up the original. But, the idea never occurred to 
any agents of the Administration to subject Dreyfus to the savage and 
atrocious treatment which has been spoken of." 

Colonel Jouaust, addressing Dreyfus, asked : 

"Did you receive the letter just referred to? " 

Dreyfus replied : 

"Yes, Colonel." 

"What impression did it make on you? " 

"I understood nothing of what it contained," answered the priscaer. 

At this juncture some time was occupied in reading a long report from 
the Minister of the Colonies to the Minister of War, giving the various 
reports of the governor of French Guiana. Passages describing the dread 
the prisoner expressed to the doctors when he feared he was losing his 
reason caused an immense impression. Tears were even seen to glisten in 
the eyes of General Billot, the former Minister of War. 

At the conclusion of the report, M. Lebon asked leave to explain. He 

" I do not dispute the accuracy of the report, but it is partial. Refer- 
ence has been most carefully made to the precarious health of the pris- 
oner. But the doctor never made a communication to me on the subject. 
I do not hesitate to say that if he had done so I should have given orders 
to have the prisoner treated as all invalids should be treated. It is with 
deliberate intent that I have been represented as an executioner." 


Colonel Jouaust, turning to Dreyfus, then remarked : 

" Have 5'ou anything to say in regard to this deposition ? " 

Then the prisoner made vehement reply that he was not tliere to 
complain, saying: 

"No, Colonel. I am here to defend my honor. I do not wish to 
speak here of the atrocious sufferings, physical and moral, which, for five 
years, I, a Frenchman and an innocent man, was subjected to on the He 

These remarks of Dreyfus caused intense excitement in court. The 
prisoner uttered the words in a loud voice and with tremendous energy. 

M. Demange asked that the official report of the treatment of Drey- 
fus on the He du Diable should be read. The clerk of the court did so, 
and in a sympathetic tone, recounted the harrowing tale of Dreyfus's 
mental and physical sufferings and inhuman treatment, as already pic- 
tured in a previous chapter. 

Deep-drawn breaths of indignation came from the hearers as the read- 
ing proceeded. Dreyfus at first watched the faces of the judges with his 
usual composure ; but gradually, as the story proceeded and incidents of 
his awful existence were brought up before him, his eyes grew dim and 
tears glistened in them, and then slowly trickled down his cheeks. Drey- 
fus could stand it no longer, and, for the first time during his trial, gave 
way to such emotions and silently wept. The faces of those in the audi- 
ence expressed sympathy with the prisoner's emotion, and even the cap- 
tain of gendarmes sitting beside Dreyfus turned and gave him a look of 
unconcealed compassion. 

General Mercier, who, with M. Lebon, was seated in the front row of 
the witnesses' seats, listened to the reading of the report unmoved, while 
Colonel Jouaust followed it with an air of bored tolerance. 

M. Lebon afterward returned to the stand and added a few more words 
in justification of his conduct, and then Colonel Jouaust ordered the next 
witness to be brought in. All eyes were turned toward the door on the 
right of the stage, and a moment later the form of a woman, dressed in 
deep mourning, appeared in the doorway, and, accompanied by a non-com- 
missioned officer, advanced to the platform. It was the widow of Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel Henry, the French officer who committed suicide in prison 
after confessing to forging certain documents in the case. 


With pale face, and hand upraised before the crucifix, she took the oath 
to tell the truth. 

Madame Henry was of medium height, with a plain cast of features. 
She at once put herself at ease, leaning forward with both hands resting on 
the rail of the witness stand. In an attitude of complete self-possession 
she gave her evidence, accompanying the words with frequent gestures. 

In the course of her deposition, Madame Henry admitted the frequent 
visits of Esterhazy to her husband, and declared her husband told her he 
had forged one document "in order to save the honor of the country." 

Colonel Jouaust, in addressing Madame Henry, said : 

" We thought, Madame, that your life in common with your husband 
has placed you in a position to give interesting information. I beg you 
to tell the court what you know." 

Madame Henry deposed that toward the end of September, 1894, 
after dinner one evening, her husband told her a very important paper 
had been handed him. The witness added: 

"As he did not return, I retired about eleven o'clock, and I asked him, 
when he returned, why he was later than usual. He undid a narrow, 
transparent roll of paper, and said : 

" ' There is a serious matter here, which I have been requested to inves- 
tigate this evening.' 

"Shortly afterw^ard he re-entered the room, holding papers and a let- 
ter, which he had just pieced together. He placed them all in his hat, in 
order not to forget them in the morning. He left on horseback, as cus- 
tomary, the following morning, saying he had to see Colonel Sandherr as 
soon as possible." 

"'What was his impression on seeing the bordereau?" asked Colonel 

The witness replied that he, Colonel Henry, did not know the author 
of it, but said perhaps Colonel Fabre or Colonel d'Abbeville knew. 

Continuing, Madame Henry said: 

"When my husband returned from the Cherche-Midi Prison, after 
taking Dreyfus there, I asked why he was on duty, and he answered : 

"'I have just canied out the most painful task an officer can have. I 
have taken to the Cherche-Midi an officer accused of the frightful crime 
of treason.' Without naming Dreyfus, he added: 


"'I beg you not to speak of it for some time. Pie is an unfortunate 
fellow.' " 

Before concluding her testimony, Madame Henry returned to the 
subject of the forgery. She evidently thought she could exonerate 
her husband by saying that he believed he Avas justified, in the interests 
of his country, in inserting in the existing dossier new and convinc- 
ing material, the proof of which had reached him verbally a few days 

In answer to a question of Colonel Jouaust, Madame Henry declared 
she did not know the name of the person who had given the information 
to her husband. 

General Eoget, in undress uniform, followed. His evidence was a vit- 
riolic diatribe against Dreyfus from beginning to end. He traversed the 
old ground, giving his reasons for his conviction of the guilt of Dreyfus. 
He declared there was no charge against Esterhazy, with the exception of 
the resemblance of his handwriting to that of the bordereau. Moreover, 
the witness added, there had been a new fact since the judgment of the 
Court of Cassation, namely, Esterhazy's confession that lie wrote the bor- 
dereau. But, he added, Esterhazy advanced and withdrew his confession 
intermittently. If Esterhazy had . rendered services to the Intelligence 
Department there would have been traces of them in the books. But 
no money had been paid Esterhazy, though, even supposing he worked 
out of pure benevolence, he would have been paid. Yet there was no 
trace of such payments. Esterhazy had first confessed that he wrote the 
bordereau by the orders of Colonel Sandherr, to a representative of the 
London Observer. The confession was published in that paper on Septem- 
ber 25, 1898. Later ho made a signed confesGion.. which was published in 
the Daily Chronicle, of London, and later still he confessed to Le Matin, 
in Paris. It was not the fact of the confession that the Court of Cassation 
deemed a "new fact," but because Esterhazy possessed paper identical with 
that on which the bordereau was written, and because bib handwriting was 
identical with that of the bordereau. 

"But," declared General Eoget, "I, who knew Colonel Sandherr, will 
declare that is false. Colonel Sandherr was absolutely incapable of such 
an order. I add that it is inadmissible, because Colonel Sandherr was the 
last person to know of the existence of the bordereau, which was received 



ia the ordinary way. This bordereau was handed to Colonel Henry, and 
was brought by him to the Ii-.telligence Department. It was shown to 
others by Colonel Henry after he had pieced it together. Colonel Sand- 
herr only saw it later. 

" Esterhazy has also said the document was stolen from an embassy 
and brought by a porter. It is false to say the Intelligence Department 
ever had any relations with a porter of that embassy. It is possible Es- 
terhazy is preparing some surprises for us between now and the end of the 
trial. They won't disturb me any more than other surprises." 

Eeferring to the question of the complicity of Henry and Esterhazy, 
the witness said: 

" If Henry had been the accomplice of Esterhazy, how can it be admit- 
ted that he himself brought the bordereau, which might have caused him 
to be suspected, to ihe Intelligence Department? " 

General Eoget while testifying constantly turned toward the prisoner 
to see the impression made by his deposition, which was virtually a 
speech for the prosecution. The general discoursed lengthily on the 
famous scene with Colonel Henry in the ofhce of M. Bertulus, the exam- 
ing magistrate, and said M. Bertulus asked Henry to inform the witness 
that he, M. Bertulus, was a friend of- the army, and begged the witness to 
call and see him, when he would communicate the result of his investiga- 
tions into the "Blanche" and "Speranza" forgeries. "In reply," said 
General Boget, " I said : ' When you see M. Bertulus, you will thank him 
in my behalf. Tell him the investigation does not interest me in any 
way.' I added that I was rather distrustful of this proposal, which I 
pointed out was perhaps a trap." 

The general next dealt with the seizure of papers at the house of Mme. 
Pays, on which M. Bertulus largely founded his conviction of the guilt 
of Henry, owing to the mention in them of the name of a spy, Richard 
Cuers at Basle, where it was well known spies were in the habit of 

Then the general tried to refute M. Bertulus's statements, declaring 
Henry brought three of these documente to the War Office, and that they 
did not contain the mention of Basle or Cuers as stated by M Bertulus. 
The latter, however, had already shown before the whole Court of Cassa- 
tion that, while he was mistaken in saying the words appeared in those 


documents, they did appear in other papers seized at Mme. Pays's resi« 

At this point the general thought it desirable to male a declaration 
that he did not desire it to be said that he questioned the good faith of 
,some of the witnesses who had been heard. He added: 

" I make this statement so that there shall be no misunderstanding 
and in order that my words be not misinterpreted. Nevertheless, their 
testimony is open to criticism, even as our utterances are criticised." 

Continuing, the witness said: 

" M. Casimir-Perier deposed before the Court of Cassation that an am- 
bassador called to demand an official denial of the statement that impor- 
tant documents were found at his embassy. The ambassador, however, 
knew it was a fact. But, admitting that he did not know it, there is 
nothing surprising in the occurrence, in view of the facility with which 
Attach^ ' A ' (I do not mention his name, as the minister has forbidden it) 
allowed compromising letters to lie around. I read one such letter which 
was very compromising to a person whose name I cannot mention. Why, 
therefore, should not the bordereau go astray ? " 

The general insisted upon the truth of the statements that Military 
Attaches "A" and "B," under which letters he referred to Colonel 
Schwartzkoppen, of the German Embassy, and Major Panizzardi, of the 
Italian Embassy, at the French capital, at the time worked together almost 
daily, and he quoted a passage from a letter ex«hanged between them as 
follows : 

"M. Hanotaux, the sly fellow, is glad at the Embassy's denying. The 
Embassy must deny." 

In the same document, declared General Eoget, was a name written 
twice, and the name, he asserted, was that of Dreyfus. The name of Es- 
terhazy, he added, was not found in any of the documents, ntme of which 
could be ascribed to him, with the exception of the iidit bleu, "which 
Colonel Picquart discovered in such an extraordinary manner." 

A certain military attach^, the general said, later informed Colonel 
Sandherr that there was some on-^. who imitated his handwriting perfectly. 
The name of Dubois, the witncos further said, was found in the correspon- 
dence of the military attaches. Dubois, the general explained, was a 
"unfortunate " who tried to sell the secret of the smokeless powder used 


in the French army. "If," said General Eoget, "no other person can be 
found to whom the initial 'D ' can apply, to whom does it then apply? " 

As he made this remark the witness faced about and looked fixedly at 
the prisoner, who, however, merely shrugged his shoulders. 

"No," continued the general, "the explanations furnished on this point 
by M. Trarieux [former Minister of Justice] troubled me somewhat, but 
I do not insist." 

Here General Eoget paused, the excitement under which he was labor- 
ing being almost uncontrollable. In a thick, choking voice, he continued: 

" And yet in the presence of disinterested testimony like mine, you 
will not allow preference to be shown to the evidence of persons who have 
benefited by treason." 

At this point the general broke down and tears streamed down his 

Major Hartmann, a French artillery expert, had exposed before the 
Court of Cassation that Dreyfus could not have written the bordereau, be- 
cause there were blunders in the terms used, w^hich Dreyfus, also an ex- 
pert artillerist, could not possibly have made. 

General Eoget then repeated the old evidence tending to prove that 
Dreyfus alone was aware of the secrets of the new artillery guns, of the 
plans for the concentration of troops, and of the contents of the Fairing 
Manual. He then endeavored to sliow that Colonel Picquart had recourse 
to fraudulent methods, with the intent of incriminating some one other 
than Dreyfus, and declared Picquart spent 100,000 francs with the object 
of organizing a campaign of surveillance " of an unfortunate officer who 
was guiltle>;s." This 100,000 francs, he added, was a reserve accumu- 
lated by Colonol Sandherr, by strict economy, from the funds at the dis- 
posal of the War Office. This reserve had entirely disappeared. 

In response to gestures of contradiction from ]\I. Demange, General 
Eoget admitted the figures quoted were perhapo exaggerated. 

The witness next accused Colonel Picquart of suppressing documents 
tending to compromise Dreyfus. 

As the general was evidently greatly fatigued. Colonel Jouaust sug- 
gested that he continue his testimony the following day, August 17th. 
The colonel then addressed the prisoner, asking him if he had anything to 
say in reply to General Eoget. 


The prisoner, who, during the time of General Eoget's fulmination 
against him, had several times made a movement as if to rise and retort, 
but was waved down by Colonel Jouaust, then rose, and, in that voice 
which is not agreeable in ordinary times, but, when strangled with emo- 
tion as it was that day, had a thrilling effect on his hearers, he cried : 

"No, Colonel. It is frightful that, day after day, for hours, I should 
thus have my heart, my soul, and my very entrails torn without being 
permitted to reply. It is a terrible torture to impose upon an innocent 
and loyal soldier. It is a frightful thing ! Frightful ! Frightful ! " 

The audience, profoundly stirred, began to applaud, but the applause 
was quickly suppressed. 

The court then adjourned 

As the prisoner passed out in front of the seats assigned to the repre- 
sentatives of the press his face was pale but animated. He seemed to be 
in a state ©f great nervous excitement and in a furious temper. 

The general impression left by the day's proceedings was unfavorable 
to Dreyfus, owing to the absence of such cross-examinations as M. Labori 
would have submitted M. Lebon and M. Gu^rin to, and owing to the fact 
that General Eoget's arguments received no reply. 


Chapter XXXII, 


The court-martial session of August 17th opened with brighter pros- 
pects for the prisoner, as M. Demange, of counsel for the defence, evi- 
dently came primed with questions, and subjected General Eoget, who 
resumed his deposition on the opening of the court, dealing with the 
theft of Esterhazy's letters from Mile. Pays, to a warm cross-examining 

General Eoget was unable to conceal his annoyance and anger when 
M. Demange scored. The ends of the witness's fingers twitched nervous- 
ly, and he frequently turned for consolation toward Generals Billot and 
Zurlinden, former Ministers of War, who were seated on the witnesses' 
seats behind him. The general also threw glances of savage resentment at 
the audience, when, as happened several times, suppressed titters went 
round the court-room when M. Demange cornered him. 

Finally Eoget became quite red in the face, and answered M. De- 
mange in a hollow voice, contrasting strangely with his confident tone of 

General Eoget, on resuming his testimony, criticised the surveillance 
established by Colonel Picquart over Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. This 
surveillance, he said, lasted several months and included the interception 
of letters addressed to Esterhazy. There had also been searches of Henry's 
house during his absence. 

All these measures, the witness asserted, were carried out without the 
authorization of the Minister of War, who was not even informed of them. 
Moreover, he asserted, the investigations were carried on at the expense 
of the Secret Service Fund. The witness also objected to Colonel Pic- 
quart's methods of watching Mile. Pays. 

In regard to Esterhazy, General Eoget admitted the former was a 
gambler and an immoral character. But, he asserted, "while I have 


acknowledged his little failings, I nevertheless maintain that he has been 
the victim of abominable persecution." 

General Eoget next spoke of the arrest at Belfort of Quenelli, a spy, 
declaring that Picquart " doctored " the allegations of spying against Que- 
nelli, in order to attract to himself the approval of his superiors. 

M. Demange asked Colonel Jouaust to request General Eoget to re- 
peat the explanations which he had given before the Court of Cassation in 
regard to the part played in the affair by Major Du Paty de Clam, where- 
upon the witness repeated the tale of Du Paty de Clam's steps to warn 
Esterhazy of the campaign said to be organizing against him. 

The general said he believed the forged " Speranza " letters were either 
written by Du Paty de Clam or instigated by him. Witness said he had 
not acted against Du Paty de Clam, because he saw nothing culpable in 
what he had done to save Esterhazy. 

With reference to the "document liberateur," which was a document 
forged in order to secure the release of Esterhazy when he was court- 
martialled. General Eoget said he only knew how it reached the Ministry 
of War, adding that its disappearance from that ministry was a mystery. 
But, he said, doubtless Du Paty de Clam covdd explain the matter. This 

document was the " Cette canaille de D " letter. Wlien, in the autumn 

of 1897, the General Staff was using every effort to shield Esterhazy, this 
document was secured from the archives and given to Esterhazy by Du 
Paty de Clam. Esterhazy made it the subject of a note to the Minister 
of War. He said it had been given to him by a veiled lady who had ex- 
plained to him that she had stolen it from Picquart, whose friend she had 
been. She knew of the plot to ruin Esterhazy, and was overcome with 
pity for him. By the scheme of the "document liberateur," Du Paty de 
Clam not only desired to implicate Picquart, but also to draw attention to 
the " innocent " Esterhazy, who was being " persecuted by the syndicate 
of treason." General Billot was completely deceived. 

Counsel for the defence here wanted to know how, under such circum- 
stances, Du Paty de Clam's intervention in behalf of Esterhazy could be 
explained. But the witness could only attribute it to Du Paty de Clam's 
"moral conviction of Esterhazy 's innocence." 

"What I would like to know," said M. Demange," is how an innocent 
man like Esterhazy was thought to need this kind of help? " [Laughter.] 


"It is certain I should uot have done it," said the witness^ which 
caused renewed laughter. 

During the course of his remarks,, M. Demange referred to the docu- 
ment known as the petit bleu and the erasures in it. The general admitted 
the erasures might have been made with the view of giving the document 
a suspicious appearance. But, he intimated, Picquart made the erasures 
and reinserted the name of Esterhazy after taking the photograph exhib- 
ited before the Court of Cassation. 

Counsel insisted that the falsification occurred after the p)<itit hlcu left 
Picquart's hands, and demanded further explanations from the witness. 

The general, however, said he was unable to testify as to who falsified 
the document, or as to why it was done. But he did not think it was 
done with the view of compromising Picquart. 

"How was it you knew," counsel asked General Eoget, "that 600,000 
francs was offered to Esterhazy if he would confess to being the author of 
the bordereau ? " 

"I heard it," the witness replied, "from the Court of Inquiry which 
tried Esterhazy, and from Esterhazy himself." 

"Ah!" exclaimed counsel, " it was Esterhazy who said it. Just so." 

"Why was his residence searched?" M. Demange then asked, and the 
general answered : 

" Esterhazy, at one time, had the document containing the words ' Cette 
canaille de D ,' and might, therefore, have had others." 

"You admit, then," asked M. Demange, "that he might have had 
other interesting documents ? " 

"When one is conducting an inquiry," said the witness, "one must 
expect anything and search accordingly." 

"Admitting," counsel then said, "that Esterhazy was the agent of the 
Dreyfus family, and that he had agreed to assume, as suggested, the pris- 
oner's guilt, how do you explain the fact that Esterhazy upon several 
occasions wrote statements calculated to compromise the case of Dreyfus? " 

"With Esterhazy," replied General Eoget, "one can never be sure of 
anything. [Laughter.] He is such an extraordinary fellow. I do not 
know what he may be doing to-day, nor what he will do to-morrow." 

These statements of the general convulsed the court with laughter and 


seemed to irritate the witness, who was growing nervous under the search- 
ing examination of comisel. 

Turning to Dreyfus, General Roget cried, in a loud voice: 
" I know very well that if I was accused of an act of treason which 
I had not committed, I should find arguments with which to defend m,y- 

This assertion evoked murmurs, but the general shouted : 
" Why does he deny even the most obvious things ? " 
M. Demange shrugged his shoulders, and ejaculated, "Ah! " 
Dreyfus, however, arose and emphatically denied point blank some 
of the general's evidence. He said he never traced on a map any plan of 
concentration or mobilization, and never had any knowledge of the details 
of these movements, nor of the plan for the distribution of the various 
units throughout the departments. 

Then came a witness who proved to be a splendid reinforcement for 
Dreyfus. It was M. Bertulus, the examining magistrate who received the 
late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's confession of forgery. 

In almost inaudible tones, owing to hoarseness, M. Bertulus gave his 
testimony, which was a veritable speech for the defence. Coming from a 
man of the high legal reputation of M. Bertulus, this evidence raised the 
hopes of the Dreyfusards immensely, as it apparently made a deep impres- 
sion on the members of the court. 

The magistrate had inquired into the charges made against Esterhazy 
by his cousin, Christian, and it was expected M. Bertulus would be con- 
fronted with General Eoget, who so tartly criticised the magistrate at the 
last session. 

M. Bertulus described how Major Eavary asked his assistance in ex- 
amining the secret dossier at the Cherche-Midi Prison, and how, after he 
had learned the contents of the documents, he declared to Major Eavary 
that there was a flaw in the dossier which would occasion the collapse of 
the whole case. Here the witness explained that he meant the petit Ueu. 
It must be proved, he told the major, that the petit Ueu was a forgery, 
and was the work of Colonel Picquart, and that as long as that was not 
proved the case could not hold. 

Continuing, M. Bertulus recapitulated the evidence he had given before 
the Court of Cassation, his investigation into Dh Paty de Clam's connec- 


IleiT Schwarzkoppen, Signor Panizzardi, 

Attache of the German Embassy. Attache of the Italian Embassy 

M. Scheurer-Keslner, General Billot. 

Ex- Vice President of the Senate. 

Colonel Sandherr. Major Du Paty de Clam. 







tion with the " Speranza " and " Blanche " telegrams, and the favorable im- 
pression he had acquired of Colonel Picquart's honesty during the course 
of the inquiry. 

M. Bertulus then related the notable interviews between himself and 
Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, on July 18, 1898, shortly before he com- 
mitted suicide. This naturally was a painful recital for Madame Henry, 
the widow, who was much distressed and wept silently as the dramatic 
scene when Bertulus and Henry proceeded to seal up the seized papers 
was depicted. The magistrate repeated the whole story with emphasis, 
and it had a great effect upon the audience. 

After recapitulating his other evidence before the Court of Cassation, 
M. Bertulus energetically affirmed his belief in the innocence of Dreyfus. 
He declared the bordereau was in three pieces, and not in little bits. He 
also said that it did not reach the War Office by the ordinary channels. 

M. Bertulus said his belief in the innocence of Dreyfus was also based 
on documents in the secret dossier w^hich he had seen. But what, above 
all, perturbed the witness was the entire absence of a motive which could 
have tempted Dreyfus to commit such a crime. "Without motive," em- 
phatically declared the experienced magistrate, "there was no crime." 

This testimony created a profound impression upon his hearers. 

"You have been told," said the magistrate, "that Dreyfus is guilty. 
For myself, I believe, and believe profoundly, in his innocence. If I 
come here to tell you so, you will understand that it is because my con- 
science tells me that in so doing I am performing a duty, an absolute 
duty. The Court of Cassation has declared the bordereau to be the work 
of Esterhazy. Now, the Court of Cassation is the supreme authority in 
all matters of justice in France ! " 

Madame Henry then ascended the platform, and, standing besides M. 
Bertulus, she said : 

"On July 18th, the day my husband called on M. Bertulus, the colo- 
nel, in the course of a conversation that evening, told me he had a friendly 
and charming reception. He described how the magistrate advanced to 
meet him and held out his arms. I said to my husband: 'Are you sure 
of this man? Are you sure he is sincere? I am very much afraid that 
his kiss was the kiss of a Judas.'" 

There was a great sensation in court at this statement. 


"I was not wrong," she continued, amid the breathless interest of tho 
court; "this man is indeed the Judas I imagined." 

Eeferring to the papers which arrived at the same time as the bor- 
dereau, Madame Henry said : 

"These papers were not all torn in a thousand pieces. I was able to 
note that personally. Letters often came entire. M. Bertulus has main- 
tained that everything arrived in pieces. That is false." 

M. Bertulus said he did not desire to reply to Madame Henry, 
adding : 

"She is only a woman." 

"I am not a woman," exclaimed Madame Henry, furiously; "I speak 
in the name of my husband." 

" How shall I reply to madame ? " asked M. Bertulus. " She is defend- 
inor the name of a dead man and that of her child." 

The magistrate then handed the court a letter which he had received 
the day before, warning him that it was the intention of Madame Henry 
to create this scene and call M. Bertulus a Judas. 

After gazing steadfastly at M. Bertulus, who was greatly moved, 
Madame Henry descended from the platform and took a seat beside Gen- 
eral Zurlinden, and M. Bertulus forthwith left the court. 

Colonel Picquart was then called to the witness stand. He protested 
most formally against all suspicion of having caused the disappearance of 
any document relating to Dreyfus. Documents, he added, had disap- 
peared, but he was not connected with their disappearance. He also re- 
pelled with scorn the assertion that he had endeavored to put another 
officer in the place of the real author of the bordereau. 

"It is true," the witness continued, "that the name of Captain Dorval 
being mentioned to me as a dangerous man, I had him watched ; and do 
you know, gentlemen, by whom Dorval was denounced? By his own 
cousin," continued Picquart, "Major Du Paty de Clam." 

Colonel Picquart then next proceeded to reply to the various attacks 
made upon him. "These tactics," he said, "are evidently pursued with 
the object of lessening the value of my testimony." 

The colonel next outlined his connection with Dreyfus at the Military 
College, and afterward at the Ministry of War, where, owing to the Anti- 
Semite prejudices of the General Staff, he first appointed Dreyfus to a 


department where probationers had no direct cognizance of secret docu- 

He then described the consternation in the War Office when the trea- 
son was discovered, and the relief experienced when it 'was thought the 
guilty person had been discovered. It was then the witness discovered 
the similarity between the handwriting of Dreyfus and that of the bor- 
dereau, and he had recourse to Du Paty de Clam, "who was supposed to 
have geographical knowledge." [Laughter.] 

Then the witness described what he characterized as the "irregular 
steps " taken by General Mercier to accomplish the arrest of Dreyfus. 

Eeferring to the dictation test, the witness earnestly and emphatically 
affirmed that he saw no signs of perturbation in the handwriting of Drey- 
fus on that occasion, and, moreover, shortly afterward Du Paty de Clam 
admitted he had not found a fresh charge against Dreyfus. 

"Beyond the bordereau," added the witness, "there was nothing against 
Dreyfus — absolutely nothing." 

The colonel next declared that in 1894 he did not know the contents 
of the secret dossier. But he believed, like all other officers, that it con- 
tained frightful proofs against the prisoner. But when he became ac- 
quainted with its contents he found that his earlier impressions were en- 
tirely wrong. 

The witness also declared he was quite ignorant of the confessions 
Dreyfus is alleged to have made to Captain Lebrun-Eenault. 

Next the colonel examined the bordereau and declared Dreyfus could 
not have disclosed part of it. 

Kegarding the Madagascar note, the witness disputed its value, and 
said he did not believe it was a confidential note. He added that if 
Dreyfus, in his capacity of a probationer, had asked the witness for the 
note, he would have handed it to him immediately. Therefore, he [Pic- 
quart] was unable to understand the sentence in the bordereau reading : 
"This document was very difficult to obtain." 

Colonel Picquart declared he had never seen Dreyfus copy the small- 
est document in the War Office. In the opinion of the witness the de- 
partment where the bordereau was discovered ought to have been searched 
when the discovery was made. This, he explained, was the department 
in which Du Paty de Clam worked, and that was the department which 


was working on the plan of the concentration of the troops and the Mada- 
gascar expedition. He added : 

"It was in Major Du Paty de Clam's department that the search 
should have been made, or rather in his private room, where he worked 
quite alone." [Sensation.] 

Du Paty de Clam, continued the witness, had been guilty of grave im- 
prudence in having, contrary to the regulations, had confidential docu- 
ments copied by simple secretaries, non-commissioned officers, and even 
private soldiers, whereas the custom was that such work was done solely 
by officers. 

Later on the witness said he wondered if it was not to avoid the risk 
of punishment that Du Paty de Clam advanced the date of the reception 
of the bordereau at the Intelligence Department, so as to make it prior to 
the date of his, Du Paty de Clam's, arrival in the Third Department. 


Chapter XXXIIL 


When the trial of Captain Dreyfus was resumed on August 18th, 
Colonel Picquart continued his deposition, which was interrupted the 
preceding day by the adjournment of the court. The colonel gave his 
testimony in the same loud, fearless tone of voice. He commenced by 
declaring that he thought it necessary immediately to reply to General 
Roget's veritable arraignment of him while the latter was on the stand. 

Picquart then proceeded to discuss the secret dossier as being the 
mainspring of the condemnation of Dreyfus. 

The colonel practically occupied the whole of the sitting with a mas- 
terful presentation of his side of the case. He spoke for five hours, and 
his voice at the end of that time began to show signs of fatigue. 

His testimony was followed with the closest attention by the members 
of the court-martial and by the audience, and during the brief suspension 
of the court Generals Mercier, Ptoget, Billot, and De Boisdeffre, and other 
witnesses sauntered together up and down the courtyard of the Lyc^e or 
gathered in little groups, animatedly discussing Picquart's evidence, which, 
although it contained but few facts, was so cleverly placed before the 
tribunal and was spoken so effectively that it could not fail to repeat the 
impression he had made the day before. 

Dreyfus naturally drank in all the witness's words, which came as a 
balm to the wounds inflicted upon him by Generals Mercier and Eoget; 
and the prisoner frequently and closely scanned the faces of the judges, as 
though seeking to read their thoughts. 

Before resuming his deposition. Colonel Picquart said : 

" For the moment I shall confine myself to the following explanation : 
The Quenelli case occurred between May 30 and July 17, 1896, at 
which period, on account of a family bereavement, I was able to pay very 
little attention to my official duties. In my absence, Colonel Henry acted 


for me. Moreover, I devoted most of the month of July to a journey of 
the Headquarters' Staff, which also prevented me from attending to my 
ordinary duties. I was, therefore, able to give only very intermittent at- 
tention to the Quenelli case. Besides this, Quenelli was a returned con- 
vict, who had contravened a decree of expulsion and had been caught red- 
handed in another criminal act. He was, at first sight, a not particularly 
interesting personage. 

" I protest absolutely against the allegation that I consented to the 
communication of secret documents to the members of the Dreyfus court- 
martial without the prisoner's knowledge. I never ordered such commu- 
nication, and if it was done it was not with my cognizance. Having thus 
explained certain matters I will continue my deposition." 

Then the colonel proceeded to discuss the phrase occurring in the 
bordereau, "I am going to the manoeuvres." He said there was no ques- 
tion of probationers going to the manoeuvres in September. This, he 
pointed out, would have curtailed their period of probation in an entirely 
unusual manner. It was for this reason that D'Ormescheville, who drew 
up the acte d' accusation, or indictment, against Dreyfus in 1894, changed 
the date of the bordereau from September to April. When, however, it 
was discovered that Dreyfus knew as early as March that he would not 
attend the manoeuvres, the correct date was resumed. Later this was 
found untenable, and so, in their testimony before the Court of Cassation, 
Generals Mercier, Gonse, and de Boisdeffre reassumed the date of the bor- 
dereau to have been April. 

After dealing with the testimony of the experts at the court-martial 
of 1894, Picquart proceeded to examine the secret dossier, a close analysis 
of which, he asserted, was particularly necessary, " owing to the weight 
the document had with the members of the court-martial in 1894." 

"This dossier," continued the witness, "maybe divided into two parts. 
The first contains three documents : One, a document known as the 
d' Avignon document, the terms of which are about as follows : 'Doubt; 
proof; service letters; situation dangerous for me with French officer; 
cannot personally conduct negotiations ; no information from an officer of 
the line ; important only as coming from the Ministry ; already somewhere 
else.' " 

This is a literal translation of a cipher despatch in German, which 


was intercepted early in 1894. It was sent by Schwartzkoppen in reply 
to a message which had been intercepted December 29, 1893, and 
which contained the words : " The documents ; no sign of the General 

" Service letters " in the reply is translated from the German original 
"patent," i.e., an officer's brevet. Both dispatches have been paraphrased 
by Picquart as follows : " The documents received. There is no evidence 
that they come from the War Office." 

To which the reply was: "You doubt? My proof is that my inform- 
ant [Esterhazy] is an officer. I have seen his brevet. True, only a regi- 
mental officer; but I assure you he brings his information, every bit of 
it, from the Intelligence Bureau. I cannot communicate directly with 

"Two, the document containing the words, 'Cette canaille de D .' 

"Three, a document which is nothing but the report of a journey to 
Switzerland, and made in behalf of a foreign power. 

"The second part of the dossier," continued Picquart, "consisted partly 
of a supplementary review of the first. It contained the gist of seven or 

eight documents, one of which, 'Cette canaille de D ,' will serve for 

the purposes of comparison. It also contained the correspondence of At- 
taches 'A' and 'B.'" [These initials represent Colonel von Schwartz- 
koppen, formerly German military attache, and Major Panizzardi, the 
former military attached of Italy, at the French capital.] 

The witness next explained why Major Du Paty de Clam's translation 
of the d'Avignon document, which has been classed as idiotic, was open 
to doubt and why the document, if it had any meaning whatever, was as 
applicable to Esterhazy as to Dreyfus. Du Paty de Clam's translation or 
paraphrasing reads as follows : 

* You say the documents do not bear the mark of the General Staff. 
There are doubts ; proof is therefore necessary. I will ask for ' la lettre 
de service,' but, as it is dangerous for me personally to conduct the nego- 
tiations, I will take an intermediary and tell the officer to bring me what 
he has. I must have absolute discretion, because the Intelligence Bureau 
is on the watch against us ; there is no good of having relations with a 
regimental officer. Documents are only of importance when they comq 
from the Ministry ; this is why I continue my relations." 


Eegarding the correspondence of the military attach^, the witness 
demonstrated the insignificance of the information asked for. 

Colonel ricquart then took up the " Cette canaille de D " docu- 
ment. He called the attention of the court to the fact that it was ad- 
dressed by Schwartzkoppen to Panizzardi, and not vice versa, as long 

After giving his reasons for believing Dreyfus was not the person re- 
ferred to in that document, Picquart showed how Du Paty de Clam en- 
deavored to ascribe the authorship of the document of Panizzardi with the 
view of establishing a connection which in reality did not exist between 
the various documents in the indictment against Dreyfus. 

The former Chief of the Intelligence Department concluded his exam- 
ination of the first portion of the secret dossier by saying : 

"]\Iay I be allowed to express deep regret at the absence of Major Du 
Paty de Clam? It seems to me indispensable that this officer, who wrote 
the commentaries on the secret dossier, should be summoned to give evi- 
dence here. He would give us his reminiscences, and I would help him," 
[Laughter.] "But," added Picquart, "since I am dealing with this 
question of the commentaries of Major du Paty de Clam, permit me to 
point to you, gentlemen, that this document was not the property of any 
particular minister. It was classified as belonging to the Intelligence 
Department, and, as you see, it formed part of a well-defined dossier — a 
dossier which was shut up in one of the drawers of my desk and which 
was abstracted from it. This commentary, therefore, is upon a secret 
dossier document which was improperly removed from my department." 

Continuing, the witness remarked: "]\Iention was made yesterday of 
the disappearance of documents. That is the case in point." 

Turning to the second portion of the dossier, Picquart described a 
number of documents in it as forgeries, and said the police reports therein 
contained nothing serious against Dreyfus. He explained that they em- 
bodied the theme mostly utilized by police spies in order to dupe the In- 
telligence Department, and asserted that their information was mostly 
worthless or false, and prepared in order to make interesting reading. 

" In the inquiry made by M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire " (former presi- 
dent of the Civil Section of the Court of Cessation), continued Picquart, 
"you have an excellent example of the sort of people who can present in 


the most specious guise what amounts absolutely to nothing. You can- 
not imagine, gentlemen, what people, in order to get money, if only a 
modest twenty-franc piece, have brought to the Intelligence Department 
in the shape of so-called ' information,' which examination has proved to 
be worthless." 

Concluding his examination of the secret dossier. Colonel Picquart ex- 
plained how he had acquired the conviction that the bordereau was writ- 
ten by Esterhazy, and how he ascertained that the anti-Dreyfus proofs 
were worthless. He began by detailing how he first learned of the exist- 
ence of Esterhazy and his efforts to discover something about him. The 
witness earnestly asserted that the first occasion on which he saw Ester- 
hazy 's name was when he read the address of the 2^ctit Ucu. He said he 
was not acquainted with Esterhazy, and never had Esterhazy watched. 
Previous to this the utmost efforts had been made to prove the contrary, 
and to show that Picquart knew Esterhazy before the discovery of the petit 

What Picquart gathered about Esterhazy's character, he continued, cre- 
ated the worst impression upon him, but he learned nothing to connect 
Esterhazy with any act of espionage. Therefore he did not mention his 
suspicions. An agent, however, was ordered to watch Esterhazy, who 
had completely compromised himself through his relations with an Eng- 
lish company, of which he had agreed to become a director. 

"That could net be permitted in the case of a French officer," said 
Picquart. " Moreover, Esterhazy gambled, led a life of debauchery, and 
lived with Mile. Pays." 

Turning to the leakage at Headquarters, the witness described the ne- 
gotiations of Major Lauth with the spy Eichard Cuers, at Basle, showing 
how the spy promised to inform him about the leakage, and how he, Pic- 
quart, was induced to allow Lieutenant-Colonel Henry to accompany Major 
Lauth to Basle. 

Picquart also described the vague replies of Henry when questioned 
on the subject of Esterhazy before his departure, and the futility of the 
visit to Basle, because of Cuers's refusal, when he saw Henry, to impart 
the promised information. This incident caused the witness to wonder 
whether, instead of trying to make Cuers speak, Henry and Lauth had not 
done everything possible to impose silence upon hirn. 


"I affirm," continued Picquart, "that General de Boisdeffre knew that 
this question was to remain a secret between us, and that I was not to 
mention it except to the Minister of War. I knew Esterhazy was anx- 
ious to enter the War Office, and I did not regard his desire favorably. I 
communicated my impressions to my chiefs, who approved all my steps, 
and the application of Esterhazy was rejected. 

"His insistence, however, only increased my uneasiness regarding him, 
and I resolved to obtain a specimen of his handwriting. I was immedi- 
ately struck with the similarity of his handwriting and that of the bor- 
dereau, and forthwith I had the letters of Esterhazy which were in my 
possession photographed, and showed the photographs to Major Du Paty 
de Clam and M. Bertillon between August 25th and September 5th." 

The colonel emphasized this point, because M. Bertillon affirmed that 
he saw the photographs in May, 1896, and made a note of them, whereas 
the letters were not written on that date. The convicting testimony of 
Picquart and Bertillon on this point had been used to discredit the for- 
mer's evidence. 

Colonel Picquart also said Du Paty de Clam, on seeing the writing, 
forthwith declared it was that of Mathieu Dreyfus, the brother of Captain 

The witness, continuing, said: 

" ' You know,' Du Paty de Clam maintained, ' that the bordereau is 
the joint work of Alfred and Mathieu Dreyfus.' 

"M. Bertillon said: ' That is the writing of the bordereau.' 

*M. Bertillon tried to discover where I had obtained the handwriting, 
but the only information I imparted was that it was current and recent 

" M. Bertillon then suggested that it was a tracing, and ended by say- 
ing that if it was current handwriting it could only have emanated from 
some one whom the Jews had been exercising for a year in imitating the 
writing of the bordereau. 

"At M. Bertillon's request I left the photographs with him. When 
he returned them he said he adhered to his opinion and earnestly asked 
to see the original. When I saw beyond a doubt that the handwriting of 
the bordereau was Esterhazy's, and seeing that the documents mentioned 
therein might have been supplied by Esterhazy, that the words, ' I arp. 


going to the manosuvres ' could perfectly well apply to Esterhazy, and that 
Esterhazy had secretaries at his disposal to copy a document so volumi- 
nous as the Firing Manual, I resolved to consult the secret dossier to see 
what part of the treacherj'' might be ascribed to Dreyfus, and to assure 
myself whether the dossier contained anything implicating Esterhazy. I 
frankly admit I was stupefied on reading the secret dossier. I expected 
to find matters of gravity therein, and found, in short, nothing but a doc- 
ument which might apply just as much to Esterhazy as to Dreyfus, an 
unimportant document mentioning d'Avignon, and a document which it 

seemed absurd to apply to Dreyfus, namely, the 'Cette canaille de D ' 


" Lastly, I recognized a report appended in the handwriting of Guen- 
n^e, an agent, which appeared to be at least as worthless as the second 

" It was then evening. I had stayed late at the office in order to ex- 
amine the documents thoroughly. I thought it over during the night, 
and the next day I explained the whole situation to General de Boisdeffre. 
I took to his office the secret dossier, the facsimile of the bordereau, the 
petit lieu, and the principal papers connected with my investigation of 

" I wonder now if I had one or two interviews ? But I still see Gen- 
eral de Boisdeffre, as he examined the secret dossier with me, stop before 
he reached the end, and tell me to go into the country, give an account 
of the affair to General Gonse, and ask his advice. 

"When I informed General Gonse of all which had occurred, he re- 
marked : ' So a mistake has been made ? ' 

" After my interview with General Gonse I did not work any longer on 
my own initiative. I said nothing more until the return of General 
Gonse, September 15th. At this time Esterhazy was at the great manoeu- 

Next the witness dwelt on the rumors in September, 1896, of the proj- 
ect of replacing Dreyfus by a man-of.-straw, and the discovery of the forged 
Weyler letter, supposed to be connected with the same project. 

At about the same time the campaign for and against Dreyfus was 
started by the newspapers. 

The witness then turned to the newspaper attacks on Dreyfus, saying 


that the information regarding the bordereau contained in them convinced 
him that they had been inspired by some one closely connected with the 
Dreyfus affair. They could not, he added, be attributed to the Dreyfus 
family, while they contained expressions familiar to Du Paty de Clam, 
whom it would be interesting to hear on the subject. 

The witness next said he asked permission to inquire into the sources 
of the articles, but was forbidden to interfere in any way whatever. 

Describing his interview with General Gonse, on September 15th, 
Picquart said : 

" When I asked General Gonse for permission to continue the investi- 
gation, insisting on the danger of allowing the Dreyfus family to proceed 
v/ith their investigation alone, the general replied that it was impossible, 
in his opinion and in the opinions of General de Boisdeffre and the Minis- 
ter of War, to reopen the affair. When I pressed the point, in order to 
make General Gonse understand that nothing could prevent its reopening 
if it could be believed Dreyfus was innocent, General Gonse replied : 

" ' If you say nothing, nobody will know.' 

"'General,' I replied, firmly, 'what you tell me is abominable. I do 
not know what I shall do. But I won't carry this secret with me.' 

"I at once left the room," added the witness. "That is what occurred. 
I know my account is disputed, but I positively swear it," said Picquart, 
as he emphatically smote the bar in front of the witness box, and looked 
in the direction of the generals. 

The colonel next described his intentions with regard to Esterhazy, 
which Generals Gonse and de Boisdeffre had forbidden him to carry out. 
He attached particular importance to this point, as it contained a clue to 
subsequent occurrences. Later, the witness said, that while Du Paty de 
Clam evidently acted wrongly in disguising himself during the investiga- 
tions with a false beard and blue spectacles, perhaps he was authoiized to 
do so. 

Colonel Picquart also showed how, through an article in the Eclair of 
September 14, 1896, he was satisfied Esterhazy had been warned of the 
suspicions against him. 

In order to make the proofs complete, the witness continued his inves- 
tigations with the utmost discretion. In his opinion, the only event of 
importance in the Dreyfus affair since the discovery of the bordereau was 


the Henry forgery, perpetrated on October 31st, 189G. He added that it 
must have been handed immediately to General Gonse. 

Shortly before Henry perpetrated the forgery, the agent Guen^e, Henry's 
right-hand man, prepared a report declaring that M. Castelin (Republican 
Revisionist, Deputy for Laon, division of Aisne) was about to play the 
hand of the Dreyfus family by unmasking, in the Chamber of Deputies, 
the prisoner's accomplices, thus having the affair reopened. 

Then, turning to the distant mission upon which he was dispatched, 
Picquart described the irritation he felt when he saw he was being removed 
because he was no longer wanted as head of the Intelligence Department. 
He explained that if this disgrace had been frankly avowed it would have 
been much less painful to him. The colonel also said that during his 
absence his correspondence was tampered with. 

Dealing with his mission to Tunis, which Picquart said ought to have 
been intrusted to a commissary of police, the witness declared it was then 
that Henry, abandoning his underhand intrigues, began a campaign of 
open persecution. Henry wrote to the witness, accusing him of commu- 
nicating information to the press, with disclosing the contents of secret 
documents, and with attempting to suborn officers in connection with the 
jpetit hleu. 

It was then Picquart learned of the existence of the forged secret doc- 
uments directed against himself, and foresaw his own ruin if the Dreyfus 
affair was reopened ; and, to safeguard himself, he intrusted to a lawyer 
friend, M. Leblois, a certain letter from General Gonse, at the same time 
acquainting the lawyer with what he knew of Esterhazy, and instructing 
the lawyer how he should intervene, "if the occasion demanded it." This 
lawyer communicated with M. Scheurer-Kestner, then one of the Vice- 
Presidents of the Senate, and the representations of the latter to Premier 
M^line's Government followed. 

When Picquart's furlough was due. General Leclerc, commanding in 
Tunis, was ordered to send Picquart to the frontier of Tripoli. Leclerc 
commented to the witness on the abnormal order, and Picquart confided 
to the general the probable reasons for it, and his belief in the innocence 
of Dreyfus. General Leclerc thereupon ordered Picquart not to go beyond 

Picquart created a sensation by incidentally remarking that the judges 


in 1894 were shamefully deceived in having the document containing the 

words, " Cette canaille de D " communicated to them. 

Witness then bitterly recited the details of the various machinations 
with the view of incriminating him, instigated by Henry, Esterhazy, and 
Du Paty de Clam. 

"I have almost finished my task," added Picquart, "but I ask permis- 
sion to refer to the way the bordereau came to the War Office. I have 
doubts in regard to the person who brought the bordereau. Two quite 
different persons could certainly have delivered the bordereau in 1894. 
But, if an intelligent person had delivered it, he would certainly have in- 
sisted on the value of its contents." 

In reply to questions of General Eoget, Picquart admitted sending doc- 
uments to Belfort for the use of the Quenelli case. " But," Picquart added, 
"they were handed to the Public Prosecutor." 

General Eoget's questions were evidently with the view of eliciting 
the confession from Colonel Picquart that, in the Quenelli case, he com- 
municated to the judges documents unknown to the defence, as he now 
accuses the General Staff of doing in the Dreyfus case. 

General Mercier promptly replaced General Eoget. 

"Picquart," Mercier said, "has stated that I ordered him to convey 
documents to Colonel Maurel-Pries. That is false. I never handed any 
packet to Colonel Picquart for Colonel Maurel-Pries. I never mentioned 
secret documents to him." 

In reply Colonel Picquart said : 

" I remember perfectly that General Mercier handed me a packet for 
Colonel Maurel-Pries." 

General Mercier next denied Colonel Picquart's statement relative to 
the meeting with General Gonse during the afternoon of January 6, 1895, 
when the latter was greatly excited at the prospect of war. 

Colonel Picquart replied that he adhered to everything he had said. 
General Gonse, the witness explained, was excited because he knew of the 
action of an ambassador toward M. Casimir-Perier, then President of the 

General Mercier next referred to Picquart's statement that the D'Avig- 
uon document was communicated to the court-martial of 1894. He said: 

" I deny it positively. The only documents communicated were the 


Panizzardi telegram, Du Paty de Clam's commentary, the note of the Ital- 
ian attach^ in regard to French railroads, and the report of Guen^e." 

Picquart here pointed out that he had only expressed his belief on this 

Maitre Demange's cross-examination compelled General Mercier some- 
what reluctantly to enumerate the secret documents submitted to the first 
court-martial. Among them was the " Cette canaille de D " letter. 

When asked why the commentary of Guen^e was not attached to the 
document, Mercier replied : 

" It was supplied for my personal use. " 

"Then," said Maitre Demange triumphantly, "you could not have 
meant Dreyfus, but did mean Dubois." 

M. Demange asked General Mercier why it did not occur to him to 
append to the comments information of the existence of a man named 
Dubois, who was suspected of having communicated information to foreign 

General Mercier replied . 

" Because we had discovered that he could not have been the author 
of the documents mentioned in the comments." 

"Ah," said Maitre Demange, "because you considered that Dubois 
could not be the author, after study of the dossier, of the divulgations, 
consequently you did not reveal the fact that there was a person called 
D who might be meant ? " 

General Mercier — Quite so. 

The court then adjourned. 


Chapter XXXIV. 

The stage of the Lyc^e at Eennes was occupied, successively, on Au- 
gust 19th, by three enemies of Dreyfus — Major Cuignet, General de Bois- 
deffre, and General Gonse. From 6:30 until 11 A.m. they devoted them- 
selves mainly to reiterating what they had said in evidence against the 
prisoner, who followed them with characteristic composure. 

But when the moment came for him to reply, the prisoner delivered 
one of those brief utterances of indignation which have had such a power- 
ful effect upon his hearers. 

General de Boisdeffre, one of the witnesses, is tall, and, like every gen- 
eral who has appeared in court except General Mercier, he boasted of a 
very conspicuous bald patch, the heads of the other generals being adorned 
by little more than a rim of gray hair. 

De Boisdeffre spoke in a blunt manner and in somewhat gruff tones, 
but with a certain air of sincerity which had its effect on the judges. 

The general was treated with obvious deference by the members of the 
court-martial, but he did not appear to relish the novelty of being ques- 
tioned by a junior officer, one of the judges, who wished for a few harmless 

Major Cuignet, charged by Cavaignac, when Minister of War, about 
a year ago, to examine the secret dossier, was the first witness called. 

"Before beginning an account of the special investigations into the 
case which I was ordered to make by Ministers of War, from M. Cavai- 
gnac to M. de Freycinet," said the witness, "I wish to mention a personal 
fact which, in conjunction with the evidence already heard, will consti- 
tute fresh proof of the prisoner's indiscreet behavior when employed on 
the Headquarters Staff. 

" I was on the staff when Dreyfus was a probationer, during the latter 
half of 1893. Among other duties, I was connected with the railroad 


service and the mining of railroads, with the view of interrupting traffic 
in case of need. It is hardly necessary to point out the secret character 
of such matters. Dreyfus was a probationer on the eastern railroads, and 
had been ordered specially to study the mining of them. He possessed 
information relating solely to them. One day Dreyfus asked me to give 
him the general scheme of mining which I possessed, giving as a reason 
for his request that he was anxious to increase his knowledge, and that 
it was necessary for him to know the general scheme in order properly to 
carry out the work entrusted to him. I replied that I did not see the 
necessity of giving him the scheme, and that, in any case, he had better 
apply to his own chief. Major Bertin. Dreyfus pretended Bertin would 
not impart any information. Day after day he pestered me, so that finally, 
having no reason to distrust him, I began giving him explanations. 
Dreyfus displayed the keenest interest and took copious notes. When 
later his house was searched these notes were not discoverable. I do not 
know what became of them. But it is difficult to believe they were de- 
stroyed, considering the importance he seemed to attach to the information 
and the persistence shown in procuring it." 

After making the above declaration, which he apparently considered to 
be weighty evidence of the treachery of Dreyfus, Major Cuignet proceeded 
to recount in detail the task assigned to him in May, 1898, of classifying 
the documents in the Dreyfus, Esterhazy , and Picquart cases. He then said : 

" My conviction of the guilt of Dreyfus is based on three grounds : 
First, his confession to Captain Lebrun-Eenault ; second, the technical 
nature of the contents of the bordereau ; third, the results of the examina- 
tion of the secret dossier. 

" I will add to these three points the evidence of the expert Bertillon, 
[laughter] and, as indirect proof, the means employed by the Dreyfus 
family to secure the prisoner's rehabilitation. I protest that a campaign 
has been undertaken against justice, truth, and our country." 

The major's outburst of heroics evoked cynical smiles and indications 
of dissent, coupled with marks of assent from the assembled generals. 

Eegarding the confessions said to have been made to Captain Lebrun- 
Eenault, witness said he still believed they were authentic, adding : 

" If people do not believe the confessions to Captain Lebrun-Eenault, 

they will believe no human testimony." 


Continuing, the witness reasserted that the bordereau was written by 
Dreyfus at the end of August, and, incidentally, the major protested 
against Colonel Picquart's insinuations against Du Paty de Clam. He 
next returned to the secret dossier of the War Office, from which, he de- 
clared, the court was sure to draw important deductions. The witness 
then invited the court's special attention to this dossier, in which, he 
said, would be found ample proof of the prisoner's guilt. 

At this stage of the proceedings Dreyfus rose and interrupted the wit- 
ness, shouting: 

" That is a manifest lie ! " 

After this the witness recited in detail his reasons for the belief that 
the agent supplying the information was a French staff officer. 

Another document of the dossier, according to Major Cuignet, showed 
beyond dispute that the bordereau actually passed through the hands of 
Colonel Schwartzkoppen. This, to the witness, established the authenticity 
of the bordereau, an examination of which, he pointed out, proved that 
Schwartzkoppen and Panizzardi had the closest relations in all matters of 

Eeferring next to the dispatch of Colonel Schneider, former Austrian 
military attach^ at Paris, denouncing as a forgery a letter purporting to 
have been written by the attach^, in which he was represented as refer- 
ring to efforts being made by Schwartzkoppen and Panizzardi to conceal 
their relations with Dreyfus, the witness maintained that General Mercier's 
statements on the subject were correct, and that the authenticity of the 
letter had been proved. 

The major dwelt admiringly on the conclusions of M. Bertillon that 
Esterhazy had learned to imitate the handwriting of the bordereau after 
its publication in the Matin. 

At the request of M. Demange, the major's deposition before the Court 
of Cassation relating to Henry's motives and Du Paty de Clam's share in 
the preparation of the forgery was read. It showed that Cuignet emphat- 
ically declared before the Court of Cassation that he was convinced an 
investigation would easily show that Du Paty de Clam was the principal 
author of the Henry forgery. 

"Do you adhere," asked counsel, "to all you said before the full Court 
of Cassation? " 


This question greatly confused the witness, who attempted to explain 
by saying that it was not for hiin to judge Du Paty de Clam, etc. 

M. Demange pointed out that, in spite of the many arguments Major 
Cuignet had advanced against Du Paty de Clam, the militarj judge, Ta- 
vernier, threw out the case. 

"Now," added M. Demange, "Major Cuignet has advanced as much 
against Dreyfus. The oourt will be able to appreciate the value of his 

When Dreyfus was asked if he wished to reply to this witness, he 
declared he had never asked Major Cuignet for documents except by the 
desire of his chief, Major Bertin. 

"All the details which Major Cuignet has given on this subject," said 
the prisoner, " sprang out of his own imagination, and are due to the same 
state of mind which ever prompts unreasoning bitterness against an inno- 
cent man." 

Amid a buzz of excitement, the name of Major Du Paty de Clam was 
called out, whereupon Major Carriere said Du Paty de Clam had been 
officially informed that his presence was necessary to the court-martial, 
and it was hoped he would be able to come as soon as possible ; but the 
Government Commissary had heard nothing from him since this notifica- 
tion was sent. 

General de Boisdeffre, former Chief of the General Staff of the French 
Army, then advanced to the witness-box and took the customary oath to 
tell the truth. The general remarked that, in view of the exhaustive evi- 
dence already given, he would try to be brief. He hurriedly reviewed 
the leakage in the Ministry of War, the discovery of the bordereau, the 
arrest and trial of Dreyfus, and the latter's alleged confessions, before the 
ceremony of degradation, to Captain Lebrun-Renault. The witness said 
he believed the confessions were genuine. He next referred to Colonel 
Picquart's appearance in the Intelligence Department, although the wit- 
ness hesitated to appoint him because he thought Picquart too self-confi- 
dent and not sufficiently deferential toward his chiefs. 

"It has been said," continued General de Boisdeffre, "that a secret 
package of papers was shown the judges of the court-martial of 1894. I 
positively assert that, so far as I am concerned, I never ordered Colonel 
Picquart to convey any envelope to Colonel Maurel-Pries. I may add that 


Colonel Picquart never doubted the guilt of Dreyfus, and never even ex- 
pressed doubts of his guilt when he took over the duties of Chief of the 
Intelligence Department. The first instructions I gave him were to fol- 
low up the Dreyfus affair, and it is well known what was the result of 
these instructions." 

The witness discredited Colonel Picquart' s statement that the latter 
asked him not to mention the investigation to General Gonse. 

"General Gonse," said de Boisdeffre, "is a friend of thirty years' 
standing. I have always had the greatest confidence in him, and should 
certainly not have entertained a request to leave him in ignorance of what 
was occurring." 

Then the witness briefly referred to tlie trial and acquittal of Esterhazy 
and the latter's threats to proclaim himself a tool of the General Staff, after 
which the general alluded to the Henry forgery and M. Cavaignac's 
interrogations of Henry. 

"You know the result," said he, apparently much moved. "I will net 
tell you what I suffered at that moment. As soon as everything was 
ended I tendered my resignation, but was asked to withdraw it. I was 
told every one could make a mistake. But I replied that while every one 
was liable to err, every one had not the misfortune, as I had, to assert to 
a jury that a document was genuine, when in reality it was forged; that 
every one ought to stand by one's word, and that when a man happened 
to experience such a misfortune there was nothing left for him but to go 
away, and from that moment I have held aloof." 

Replying to the court. General de Boisdeffre admitted that the leak- 
age at Military Headquarters continued. After the condemnation of Drey- 
fus, he added, it ceased for a year, but in 1895 a paper was discovered 
proving the communication to foreigners of a document relating to the 
distribution of the artillery, and showing that a foreign government was 
perfectly acquainted with the changes made. 

General Gonse, who was Under Chief of the General Staff, was next 
called to the witness-stand. He explained the motives which influenced 
his actions during the past few years, and said he believed he was "ani- 
mated by the loftiest aims, nameh", the protection of the army against the 
criminal attacks made on it from all sides." 

In this connection General Gonse dwelt »pon the danger to France of 


the "system of espionage so cleverly organized against her by foreigners," 
and said that, in spit© of Esterhazy's statement, it was impossible for him 
to have written the bordereau, and still more impossible for him to have 
secured the information therein contained. He added that no traces of 
indiscretion were discovered during all the proceedings against Esterhazy. 

Continuing, the witness deplored the fact that the court-martial of 
1894 was held behind closed doors, adding: 

" I regard it as a misfortune, as a great misfortune. The witnesses 
certainly said much more at the secret trial than they would have done at 
a public trial, and the judges had a better opportunity of forming an opin- 
ion, even though the public might retain doubts. I deplore it keenly." 

General Gonse then denied that Esterhazy had received money from the 
Intelligence Department, and describing the "strange behavior of Drey- 
fus," and his "frequent acts of indiscretion," the witness begged the court 
to summon the secretary of the Minister of War, M. Ferret, who surprised 
the prisoner prying into the offices at a time when there was no business 
going on there. 

The general defended Guenee, the spy, and referred to another spy as 
an "honorable man," whose name he could not give, as having furnished 
Military Headquarters with valuable information. 

The general then proceeded to defend Du Paty de Clam from the in- 
sinuations of Colonel Picquart, and corroborated General Mercier's evi- 
dence in regard to the alleged confessions made to Captain Lebrun-Eenault. 

Replying to M. Demange, the witness admitted he had ordered Colonel 
Picquart not to concern himself with the handwriting of the bordereau 
when he commenced his investigations of Esterhazy. 

"Then," asked M. Demange, sharply, "when you saw his handwritings 
were identical with the writing of the bordereau, did that make no im- 
pression on you ? " . 

"Evidently," replied the witness, "the two handwritings had a great 

When Dreyfus was asked the regular question he said : 

" I will reply directly to the secretary of the Minister of War, who 
said he saw me in the offices after service hours. As regards General 
Gonse, I am surprised that the general officer repeats dinner-table gossip. 
There is known to be insurmountable difficulty in introducing any one 


into the Ministry of War, and it is absolutely impossible for an officer to 
bring any one into the Ministry." 

To this the general replied : 

"No doubt it is difficult, but it is not impossible. The Ministry can 
be entered easily enough at certain hours. Dreyfus was in a position to 
know that." [Sensation.] 

The Prisoner — I will reply to Secretary Ferret, who has told a lie. 
What I have to say to General Gonse is that every time a friend came 
to see me at the Ministry, even when a French officer, I was obliged to 
descend to the floor below, and even members of the Chamber of Deputies 
who called on me could not enter the Ministry. It was consequently ab- 
solutely impossible under ordinary circumstances for a subaltern to bring 
any one into the Ministry. 

General Gonse declared that permits could easily be obtained. 

At this point Colonel Picquart re-entered the witness box in order to 
reply to allegations as to the way he performed his duties. He denied a 
number of General Gonse's assertions regarding the arrests which the wit- 
ness ordered. Picquart also described the extraordinary methods of inves- 
tigation employed in the Intelligence Department by his predecessors. 


Chapter XXXV. 

The third week of the second trial by court-martial of Captain Drey- 
fus began on August 21st and developed sensational features. 

Three points stood out prominently in the day's proceedings. They 
were Colonel Jouaust's display of partiality, the new attitude taken by 
Dreyfus, and the contemptible conduct of the last witness, Junck. 

General Fabre, former Chief of the Fourth Bureau of the General 
Staff, was the first witness. 

He said that in his official capacity he compared the handwriting of 
the bordereau with the writing of various officers in his bureau, including 
the handwriting of a probationer who had been in the bureau during the 
previous year and who had not favorably impressed his comrades. This 
probationer, Dreyfus, who was regarded as untrustworthy and insincere in 
his pretensions, was, according to the witness, equally disliked by his 
comrades and superiors. He was, Fabre added, constantly endeavoring 
by all sorts of means to learn the secrets of the plan of concentration of 
the Eastern Eailway system, and in his anxiety to secure information neg- 
lected his duties. His official duties, the witness also said, placed it in 
Dreyfus's power to disclose the documents referred to in the bordereau. 
The witness could emphatically deny all Dreyfus had said on this sub- 
ject. When ]\Iajor Bertin showed the witness the bordereau the latter 
was struck with the resemblance of the caligraphy. Dreyfus was the 
only officer who made a bad impression in his bureau, and the opinions 
of the Chief of Staff and heads of other departments confirmed the wit- 
ness's belief. 

General Fabre, in conclusion, declared he was still as firmly con- 
vinced as in 1894 that the prisoner was the author of the bordereau. 

After M. Demange had pointed out the discrepancies in Fabre's pres- 
ent statements and those he voiced in' 1894, Colonel Jouaust invited 
Dreyfus to reply. 


The prisoner said General Fabre quite correctly described the "work on 
which he was engaged when a probationer, especially emphasizing that 
he had to keep the dossier relating to the concentration centres on the 
Eastern Railway system posted up. This was not a fictitious task. The 
prisoner's reply was made in calm, measured tones, and his frankness 
seemed to impress the judges favorably. 

Colonel d'Abeville, former Deputy Chief of the Fourth Bureau, related 
how Fabre had showed him a photograph of an anonymous note in which 
the writer intimated to his correspondent, "evidently foreign to the army," 
that he had confidential documents to communicate. The witness told 
Fabre that the documents mentioned showed the writer could only be an 
artillery officer, belonging to the General Staff, who participated in the 
expedition of the Headquarters Staff in June and July, 1894. The posi- 
tion of Dreyfus corresponded with these conditions, and, "to their great 
surprise," a striking resemblance was apparent in the writings of Dreyfus 
and the anonymous letter. 

The witness further declared that only a probationer could possess the 
information mentioned in the bordereau. It was not only because of the 
resemblance of the handwriting that suspicions were directed at Dreyfus, 
but because he was in a position to be acquainted with the documents 

M. Demange wished to know why Colonel d'Abeville said in 1894 
that he thought it necessary to investigate the officers who participated 
in the expedition of the General Staff that year in order to discover the 
author of the bordereau. 

To this question witness replied that he was induced to do so by the 
expression in the bordereau, "I am going to the manoeuvres," for he con- 
sidered the expedition of the General Staff equivalent to the mana3uvres, 
although troops were not actually present. 

Greater interest in the proceeding was manifested when the name of 
the next witness was announced, former Chief of the Detective Depart- 
ment Cochefert, who was present when Dreyfus underwent the dictation 
test in Du Paty de Clam's office. 

M. Cochefert declared he knew absolutely nothing of the Dreyfus case 
when the Minister of War, General Mercier, summoned him to a confer- 
ence on the subject of the bordereau and the suspicions in regard to Drey«. 


fus. General Mercier, Cochefert continued, asked the witness's advice as 
to the procedure which ought to be followed, and introduced him to Du 
Paty de Clam. Subsequently, after M. Bertillon's report, the arrest of 
Dreyfus was decided upon. 

Then the witness proceeded to describe the arrest and the famous 
scene of the dictation test, saying that from the first remark dropped by 
Du Paty de Clam the prisoner displayed evident uneasiness. Then, con- 
tinued the ex-Chief of Detectives, Du Paty de Clam, placing his hand on 
the prisoner's shoulder, said: 

" Captain Dreyfus, in the name of the Minister of "War, I arrest you t " 

At the time of the examination of Dreyfus the witness gained the im- 
pression that he might be guilty, and so reported when the Minister of 
War asked his opinion. 

During this formal examination, Cochefert added, Dreyfus declared 
his innocence very violently, and declared that he did not know what 
they wanted or of what he was accused. 

M. Gribelin, the principal archivist of the Headquarters Staff, was the 
next witness. He testified with great volubility, and expressed the opin- 
ion that when Dreyfus was arrested in 1894, he was enacting a role by 
systematically denying all the charges against him, even the most obvious 
and least important things, and in declaring himself ignorant of matters 
which should have been known to every officer of the General Staff. 

The witness said he had cognizance of Dreyfus's relations with women. 
In support of this assertion he mentioned an alleged voluntary statement 
made by Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of the prisoner, in the witness's pres- 
ence, that he had been obliged to pull his brother from the clutches of a 
woman living near the Champs Elysees. 

In regard to the dictation test, the witness recalled Dreyfus's reply to 
Du Paty de Clam when the latter pointed out that his hands were shak- 
ing, namely: "My fingers are cold." 

Replying to M. Demange, M. Gribelin admitted having mixed up Du 
Paty de Clam's and Henry's intrigues in favor of Esterhazy. This admis- 
sion created a sensation. 

It was by order of Colonel Henry, the witness added, that he, Gribe- 
lin, put on spectacles and went to the Rue de Douai to hand Esterhazy a 
letter, to which the latter was to reply "yes " or "no." It was also Henry 


who ordered witness to accompany Du Paty de Clam to Mont Souris Park 
at the time Du Paty de Clam masqueraded under a false beard. 

The witness thought it would have been much simpler to have sum- 
moned Esterhazy to the Ministry of War, especially as it was known 
Mathieu Dreyfus was about to denounce him publicly. 

M. Demange remarked that the denunciation of Mathieu Dreyfus 
could not well have been foreseen when these " romantic interviews '' with 
Esterhazy were occurring, considering Mathieu himself had not then con- 
templated a denunciation. 

M. Gribelin replied that at any rate it was known measures were in 
progress against Esterhazy. 

M. Demange — Why, then, since it was a question of saving him, were 
false beards and blue spectacle! resorted to? 

M. Gribelin — You had better ask Du Paty de Clam when he comes 
here. [Laughter.] Do not imagine it amused me. [Renewed laughter.] 

Colonel Picquart, after protesting against the manner in which his 
correspondence was tampered with, denied that he had given M. Leblois 
the slightest information regarding the secret dossier, and said the only 
document of the dossier revealed, and that was not by himself, was the 
"Cette canaille de D " document, which had been utilized by the ene- 
mies of Dreyfus. There was also the "liberateur" document, which was 
delivered to Esterhazy, " who used it to levy the most shameful blackmail 
on the Government." 

Major Lauth followed. He said that when the bordereau reached the 
Intelligence Department Henry was absolutely the only officer who knew 
the agent who furnished it, and was the only officer known to the agent. 
Henry, he explained, had appointments with the foreign spy in question 
only in the evenings at eight or nine o'clock, at various places, so it was 
imposible for Henry to hand the papers received to Colonel Sandherr the 
same evening. Therefore, he took them home and brought them to the 
office in the morning. Very often these appointments w^ere kept on Sat- 
urday, and Major Lauth believed the packet containing the bordereau was 
handed to Henry on Saturday, September 2 2d, and was taken to the office 
on September 24th. 

"One morning," said Lauth, "it may have been September 24th or 
another date, though it cannot matter rpuch, I arrived at> the ofiice and 


was about to enter the room in which I usually work, when Colonel 
Henry, who was walking in the corridor, called to me and took me into 
his room. Captain Mathen arrived simultaneously. We had scarcely en- 
tered when Colonel Henry showed the packet received, and, exhibiting 
some pieces he had pasted together, said : 

" ' It is fiightful. Just see what I have found in this packet.' 

"We walked to a windjAv, and all three began to read the contents of 
a paper, which was none other than the bordereau. We discussed who 
could be the author. 

" I must add that M. Gribelin entered the room and was informed re- 
garding the document. At the same time the bordereau was only shown 
to Colonel Sandherr half or three-quarters of an hour later, w^hen he ar- 

Next, discussing the x'ctit lieu. Major Lauth said it reached Colonel 
Picquart inclosed in a packet, early in March. Incidentally the witness 
mentioned the mission to Nancy on which Henry went, and said that 
while he was absent his w4fe came to the Intelligence Department to ask 
for his whereabouts, as she knew notliing of his departure. 

"It was the same with all the officers of the department," said Lauth. 
" Our families never knew where we were going when we were sent on 
a mission, and it was through the department that they corresponded 
with us. That proves that things were not conducted in the Fourth 
Bureau as alleged by Colonel Picquart, and the officers were not so negli- 
gent and careless as he has asserted. 

"I declare," said Lauth, "that if, by inspiring or writing it I had a 
share in any way whatever in the perpetration of the Henry forgery, I 
should have avowed it the day Henry committed suicide. I am not even 
now afraid of the razor, nor the rope of Lemercier-Picard, nor even of a 
broken-glass omelette." 

At the instance of M. Demange, Colonel Picquart again described the 
alterations of the ^^c^iY hlcu, and declared that the last time he saw it, the 
day before he started on his mission, the ^^f^iH Ueu was still in the same 
condition as when Major Lauth handed it to him in November, 1897. 
When Picquart saw it in the possession of General Pellieux, former Min- 
ister of War, it seemed to him (Picquart) that the handwriting had been 
somewhat modified, and at the Taveruier inquiry he noticed that altera- 


tions of quite a serious character had been made. Ruled lines had been 
erased. Moreover, experiments showed the address had been written in 
ink made of gall-nuts, while a superimposed word was written in ink 
made of logwood. 

Replying to the president of the court, Major Lauth said that when 
he photographed the petit Ucu he did not notice any sign of erasure. 

Colonel Picquart said the plate taken by Major Lauth bore no traces 
of erasure. The photograph alone had been tampered with. 

Colonel Jouaust — Was there an expert examination? 

Colonel Picquart — Yes. It was a searching inquiry. Besides, the 
dossier in the Ta vernier inquiry can be referred to. 

Captain Junck followed. He said he was a probationer simultaneously 
with Dreyfus, but in another department of the War Office. He saw the 
prisoner a great deal, and detailed conversations in which, he alleged, 
Dreyfus spoke of great sums he had lost in gambling and how much he 
had spent on women. 

"One day," the witness proceeded, "when we were visiting the Con- 
cours Hippique, we met three women who bowed to us. Dreyfus re- 
turned the greeting, and I said to him : ' Well, for a married man, you 
have nice acquaintances.' He replied that they were old friends of his 
bachelorhood, and, pointing to one of them, said her name was Valtesse, 
and that she had a house on the Champs Elys^es, where she gave nice 
parties, where pretty women were to be met, and where there was much 
gambling. Dreyfus also boasted of his large means, and spoke with great 
relish of his comfortable house and travels." 

The witness, continuing, said Dreyfus was well acquainted with the 
scheme for the concentration of troops, and could trace it on any map, as 
most of the other probationers could. 

The witness then detailed the work of the different bureaus, and pro- 
ceeded to demonstrate that the probationers were cognizant of the plans 
for the transportation and concentration of the troops, and how Dreyfus 
was ordered to draw up a report on the German artillery, comparing it 
with the French artillery, and having access to all the necessary docu- 

In regard to the Madagascar note, Dreyfus, Junck claimed, told the 
witness that his cousin had procured him interesting information. 

dueyi^us answers his accusers 1^9 

Captain Junck then spoke of the efforts of Dreyfus to secure the Fir- 
ing Manual, and discussed the theory that Henry might have divulged 
the documents in the bordereau. Such a supposition, the captain de- 
clared, was utterly impossible. 

Later, the witness corroborated the statement that Colonel Picquart 
proposed post-marking the petit hleio with the view of proving its genuine- 

Dreyfus, after being asked the usual question, replied : 
' " I will not speak to the witness of private confidences he has made 
to me. If Captain Junck's ideas of honor allow him to divulge private 
conversation, mine do not. I have clean hands, and I will keep them 
clean. But there are a number of facts to which I will refer. I will 
speak first in regard to all the losses it is said I sustained at the club at 
Mans. I declare I was never a member of the Civil Club at Mans, never 
visited it, and, consequently, never gambled there. I am convinced that 
the members of the club are very respectable, and ask you simply to have 
an inquiry made, in order to know if I am speaking the truth. 

" In regard to the lectures in the offices of the Headquarters Staff, at 
which it is asserted I was present, they occurred in December, 1893. I 
was absent at that time, and consequently did not attend the lectures." 

The prisoner then proceeded to show that in July, 1894, the proba- 
tioners were informed by an official circular that they were to pass a 
period of probation in the army, the first-yearers in August and Septem- 
ber, the second-yearers in October, November, and December, therefore, 
at a period when there were no manoeuvres. 

Regarding the officers directing the dispatch of troops at various 
points, Dreyfus dwelt upon the fact that he, at that time, was on a mis- 
sion and was not at the manoeuvres at all. 

"We must be precise," Dreyfus added, "and not play upon words. In 
August, 1894, the second-year probationers knew definitely that they 
were to go to various regiments in October, November, and December, and 
that consequently they would not attend the manoeuvres." 


Chapter XXXVL 


MAtxEE Labori, leading counsel for the defence, who was murderously 
assaulted on August 14th, was able to resume the defence of Captain Drey- 
fus when the trial was resumed on August 2 2d. 

The arrival of M. Labori at the Lyc^e was the signal for scenes of 
extraordinary enthusiasm. At 6:15 a.m. three carriages, preceded by a 
number of bicyles, drove up. The first carriage contained M. Labori and 
his wife and physicians. The others contained friends of the lawyer and 
some police inspectors. The crowd about the Lyc^e Building rushed up 
to M. Labori's carriage, and a number of persons eagerly thrust their 
hands through the windows to greet the distinguished lawyer. 

When M. Labori descended, he was surrounded by friends, and a hun- 
dred hands pressed his, while he was assailed with all sorts of questions, 
to which he smilingly replied : 

"I am getting on well, my friends, thank you, thank you." 

As M. Labori, still accompanied by Madame Labori and a physician, 
entered the court-room the audience greeted him by standing up, and there 
was a general roar of applause, accompanied by the clapping of hands, 
which was distinctly heard in the streets. 

Tears filled the eyes of the wounded man, who was evidently deeply 
affected by the warm welcome accorded him. Among those who greeted 
M. Labori were Generals Billot and Mercier, who courteously inquired as 
to his condition. The lawyer looked very well, considering his recent 
experience. He walked quite briskly, but held his left arm close to his 
side, in order not to disturb the wound. He was conducted to a light, 
well-cushioned armchair, instead of one of the ordinary cane-bottom 
chairs, behind the table set apart for the lawyers. 

Madame Labori, who entered the court-room ahead of her husband, 


also received a hearty greeting. As she took a seat iu court she was sur- 
rounded by friends, who overwhelmed her with congratulations on her 
husband's recovery, to which she smilingly responded. 

Dreyfus entered the court-room soon afterward, and, after saluting the 
judges iu the usual manner, he turned to M. Labori with outstretched 
hand, and a smile of keen pleasure lighted up his pale and usually impas- 
sive features. The lawyer took the prisoner's hand and shook it warmly, 
whereupon Dreyfus gave him another look of gratitude and took his seat 
in front of the counsel's table with his back toward them. 

Colonel Jouaust next read from a paper an address to M. Labori, the 
tone of the president being quite sympathetic. The lawyer made an im- 
passioned reply. He was deeply affected and his voice was clear, though 
not so strong as before the outrage. He was very nervous and excited, 
and swayed to and fro as he delivered his reply, which profoundly im- 
pressed his hearers. 

The first witness was M. Grenier, the former prefect of Belfort. His 
testimony was favorable to Dreyfus, inasmuch as his deposition was dis- 
tinctly hostile to Esterhazy. 

Major Eollin of the Intelligence Department w^as asked during the 
course of his testimony by M. Labori how a certain document, of a later 
date than Mercier's ministry, came into General Mercier's possession. 
Eollin said it w^as not his business to explain, but counsel insisted, asking 
whose business it was. 

Finally M. Labori asked Colonel Jouaust to request General Mercier 
to explain. 

The general arose and said he declined to answer. 

M. Labori insisted emphatically, but Mercier still refused to answer, 
and Major Carriere, the Government Commissary, supported him, on the 
ground that the examination was entering upon a matter which ought 
not, in the interests of the country, to be discussed publicly. 

M. Labori then declared in a loud voice that he would reserve to him- 
self the right to take the necessary measure to obtain the desired informa- 

The next point was made by Dreyfus in his reply to Major Eollin. 
The latter had remarked that all the prisoner's papers were seized when 
his rooms were searched in 1894, and Colonel Jouaust said that certain 


pages from his text-book, "The School of War," were found missing. 
To this the prisoner retorted : 

"Not in 1894, Colonel!" 

This caused some sensation, as the obvious interpretation was that the 
pages were torn out at the War Office, and that then the fact was used 
against him as an insinuation that he had communicated the missing 
pages to foreign agents. 

M. Eerret, who was alleged to have caught Dreyfus prying into the 
work of some of his fellow-officers during their absence, then testified that 
toward the end of 1893, on returning from his luncheon, at an hour the 
officers were usually out, he found Dreyfus in the Fourth Bureau, stand- 
ing with a stranger, a civilian, at the table, consulting a document which 
seemed to the witness to be connected with the transportation of troops. 

M. Demange — Why did you not give this evidence in 1894? 

Witness said he regretted he had overlooked it. 

The prisoner protested against such statements, which, he said, were 
nothing but "vile insinuations," concocted by a former Minister of War 
(General Mercier). [Great sensation.] 

"I never went into my office," continued Dreyfus, "at any other time 
than the hours of duty. I declare it was impossible, or at least most 
difficult, for a civilian to enter the offices of the Ministry of War." 

Dreyfus added that while his wife was at Houlgate, Normandy, in 
August or September, 1894, he happened to go to his office at noon, 
though the usual hour was two o'clock. 

Colonel Jouaust questioned Dreyfus relative to his hours of duties and 
the difficulty of introducing a stranger into the offices, after which Gen- 
eral Gonse asked for permission to speak in order to complete his evi- 
dence. He said he received a letter on August 21st from M. Le Cha- 
teller. Chief Engineer of the Department of Roads and Bridges, and the 
general read a letter in which Le Chateller said : 

" During six or seven years I had a permit for the Ministry of War, 
and went there at least a hundred times. I did not have to show my 
permit more than ten times. On another occasion I was accompanied by 
a friend, who entered without any other formality than opening the gate 
and saluting the sentry." [Laughter.] 

General Gonse read another letter of similar purport, and Dreyfus said : 


" That rule was strict. The letters only prove that certain persons did 
not observe it." 

M. Demange — It also proves that since the Ministry of War was so 
easily entered, others besides officers could easily procure information. 
[Murmurs of dissent.] 

Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin, who was the head of Dreyfus's office in 1894, 
was the next witness, and showed himself to be a most virulent enemy of 
the prisoner. He had evidently learned his testimony by heart, and de- 
clared it in a strident, aggressive tone, which grated upon the ears of tlie 
audience. Some of his remarks, particularly his declaration that he was 
convinced of Dreyfus's guilt by M. Bertillon's chart and his introduction 
of Esterhazy's statements against Dreyfus, elicited general smiles in court. 

The witness testified to the prisoner's great zeal at first, and said that 
later this w^as replaced by great carelessness in matters of detail. 

"In the face of this," said Bertin, "I gradually ceased to consider him 
an assistant. He left an enormous amount of uncompleted work. Thus, 
after devoting much time to initiating him into the secrets of the concen- 
tration of troops on the Eastern Eailway system in time of war, I did not 
receive any service in exchange." 

Witness added that the reports he gave Dreyfus when he left were 
such that he could never enter the Railroad Department. Proceeding, the 
witness reiterated that Dreyfus was in a position to acquaint himself with 
the questions of the Eastern Railroad's mobilization, and described a con- 
versation which he had with Dreyfus in 1893, which, in the opinion of 
the witness, threw a curious light on Dreyfus's idea of the Fatherland. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin also spoke of the comparisons of the hand- 
writings, and then, turning to the prisoner's attitude at the court-martial 
of 1894, he said it painfully impressed him, and he was convinced of the 
guilt of Dreyfus by the evidence of M. Bertillon. 

Referring to his interviews with M. Scheurer-Kestner, formerly a vice- 
president of the senate, "whom I always regarded as an honorable man, 
obeying the dictates of his conscience," Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin contro- 
verted part of Colonel Picquart's evidence on the subject, and at the con- 
clusion of his deposition the witness declared he never ordered Dreyfus to 
procure information concerning the entire network of railroads, " which the 

prisoner sought to acquire from Captain Cuignet." 


Replying to questions on the subject of tlie alleged untimely visit of 
Dreyfus to his office, witness said that the plans were kept in his office, 
and that Dreyfus knew the word necessary to open the press containing 

At this juncture the clerk of the court read a letter from M. Scheurer- 
Kestner excusing himself from being unable to attend the session of the 
court. The letter referred to the steps taken by Mathieu Dreyfus to secure 
the rehabilitation of his brother, and described the writer's investigations 
and how it was only when Esterhazy's handwriting was shown him that 
his hesitation ended. The letter also described the moments of anguish 
the writer experienced during the course of the campaign, and dwelt on 
the opinion expressed in the judgment of the Court of Cassation and the 
confessions of Esterhazy that he was the writer of the bordereau. 

In conclusion the letter said : 

" You will permit an old Alsatian, Monsieur le President, to express 
the sentiment that the hour of justice will soon strike in the interest of 
the army, of justice, and of the country." [Great sensation.] 

M. Demange reminded Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin of a remark he made 
to M. Ferdinand Scheurer-Kestner, namely : 

" There are only five of us who know this terrible secret. One out of 
the five must betray it before you can know anything." 

Counsel asked if the secret was not that Dreyfus was innocent? 

Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin — Oh, no, no ! 

M. Demange — According to the terms of the conversation ? 

Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin (energetically) — No, no; and I'll tell you 
why. I have never concealed two things from any members of the 
Scheurer-Kestner family: Firstly, that M. Scheurer-Kestner would be 
doing a great service if his efforts resulted in establishing the innocence 
of a French officer. Secondly, that I was convinced of the guilt of Drey- 
fus. [Sensation.] 

M. Demange — Did you not once make the following remark: "'This 
Jew was a thrust at Headquarters, and we had to get rid of him ' ? " 

Lieutenant-Colonel Bertin — No, never. I absolutely deny it. When 
I was in the War Office the Jewish question was never raised. Dreyfus 
was regarded as a comrade. I confided all my secrets to him and gave 
him the password of my locker. 


Bertin's testimony was concluded with a sharp passage-at-arms be- 
tween him and M. Labori. The latter declared that Bertin himself, by 
remarks which he had made upon a certain occasion, convinced the law- 
yer of the innocence of Dreyfus. Counsel then recalled other words used 
by Bertin to the effect that M. Demange was counsel for the German 
embassy because he had defended others accused of espionage. 

The witness admitted the correctness of M. Labori's quotation, where- 
upon M. Demange jumped up and protested against Lieutenant-Colonel 
Bertin's statement. Sharp words were exchanged, imtil Colonel Jouaust 
intervened and refused to allow any further discussion of a matter outside 
of the case. ^ 

Several minor witnesses followed. 

Major Gendron was called to testify regarding an Austrian woman, 
Mme. Dely. He said he had taken tea at her house on a single occasion, 
and that he thereafter confined himself to exchanging a few polite words 
with her when they met, though the gallant officer asserted that the lady 
urged his revisiting her home. He thought that neither the age nor the 
beauty of the lady accounted for her stylish mode of dressing, nor for the 
mystery of her existence, nor for the presence of her child. All this, it 
appears, told the witness that he was dealing with an adventuress. He 
heard that she had fine acquaintances, including Dreyfus, and, in view of 
the fact that in such companionship Dreyfus was liable to commit some 
light, imprudent action, witness informed Lieutenant- Colonel Bertin of his 

Major Bosse, Captain Boulanger, Colonel Jeannel, and Major Maistre 
all testified. In the main their evidence was uninteresting. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Jeannel repeated evidence which he had given be- 
fore the Court of Cassation. He was very hard on Dreyfus, but while 
testifying he scarcely once looked the prisoner in the face. 

Colonel Jeannel during his cross-examination threw some light upon 
the question of the Firing Manual, which, he said, he lent Dreyfus in 

M. Demange wanted to know the exact date, and Colonel Jeannel said 
he believed it was in July, adding "in 1894." That would have been a 
point calculated to weaken the proof against Dreyfus, counsel pointing 
out that Colonel Jeannel was not examined in 1894, and asking the cause 


of this irregularity. The date of the bordereau was given as April of that 
year, namely, before Colonel Jeannel lent the Firing Manual. 

The prisoner said that in 1894 he insisted at both the preliminary 
examination and at the court-martial that Colonel Jeannel should be 

"I obtained no satisfaction," Dreyfus added. " I was, however, sure 
of my facts. Colonel Jeannel's memory must be playing him false. Per- 
haps the confusion arises from the fact that I asked him to lend me the 
German Firing Manual." 

Colonel Jouaust — Do you remember that, Colonel Jeannel? 

Colonel Jeannel — No. 

At this point M. Labori expressed surprise that it was not thought 
necessary in 1894 to examine a witness who now (August 2 2d), "out of 
pure caprice and for the convenience of the prosecution" had become an 
excellent witness. The court, counsel added, would deduce its own 

The last witness of the day. Captain Maistre, read a letter from an offi- 
cer, now at Nantes, afl&rming that while he was on the General Staff as a 
probationer, at the same time as Dreyfus, the latter told the officer of his 
visit to Alsace-Lorraine, and recounted how he had followed the German 
army manoeuvres on foot and on horseback. 

This was intended to show Dreyfus was not telling the truth when he 
denied having been present at any time at the manoeuvres in Alsace-Lor- 

Another part of Captain Maistre's evidence proved to be in favor of 
Dreyfus. In contradiction of other witnesses who declared Dreyfus fre- 
quently stayed at the office prying into other officers' duties. Captain 
Maistre declared that Dreyfus was disinclined to work, and often left the 
office before the regular time. 

The prisoner, in the tone of calm moderation which again distin- 
guished his utterances, replied to Captain Maistre's allegations, and added, 
with reference to ]\I. Beaurepaire's accusations, that the latter's immoral- 
ity would ere long be demonstrated before the court-martial. The court 
then rose for the day. 

Maitre Labori was immediately surrounded by friends, nearly every 
one in court wishing to shake hands with him. He was cheerful and 


smiling, and had a few well-chosen words for every one. Madame Labori 
shared in the admiration expressed for her husband. The brilliant lawyer 
returned home in a carriage as he had come, with an escort of two mounted 
gendarmes. Policemen, gendarmes, and detectives were also distributed 
along the road, as a precaution against a fresh outrage. 

Apart from the salutations of his personal friends, there was no demon- 
stration while M. Labori was either going to or coming from the Lyc^e. 


Chapter XXXVIL 


Maitre Labori, leading counsel for the defence, and Madame Labori 
were present in court when the trial of Dreyfus was resumed on August 
23d. The session was comparatively imeventful. The depositions were 
not productive of any really thrilling incidents. Much of the time was 
occupied in reading the testimony of Esterhazy and Mile. Pays before the 
Court of Cassation, during which many of the audience left the court. 

M. Labori again distinguished himself in laying bare the weak points 
of the evidence. He was less fierce, however, than yesterday, though 
quite aggressive enough to arouse the latent hostility of the judges, which 
showed itself in various little ways. 

During some of the depositions M. Labori appeared very nervous. He 
was unable to remain still an instant, twitching his fingers and shaking 
papers in his hands. He was almost too impatient to wait till the wit- 
nesses concluded their testimony. 

The only dangerous opponent of Dreyfus was General Gonse, who 
mounted the stage with a qui-^k step and apparently light heart. But 
he left it badly mauled by M= Labori. 

General Gonse began by declaring he came to defend his honor against 
those " drivelling " against him. But when his cross-examination was fin- 
ished he returned to his seat with his honor worse off than before, for M. 
Labori had driven him into a corner on the attempts of the General Staff 
to shield Esterhazy, and had shown that the General Stafi", for which 
Gonse was responsible, had engineer3d Esterhazy's escape from the hands 
of justice. 

Comptroller Ray, the first witness called, gave his impressions of 
Dreyfus, which harmonized with those of the generals who have already 
testified. But, the witness was unable to give a single specific fact to 
substantiate his impressions. 


Major Drevieli testified to a long string of similar insinuations. He 
referred to Dreyfus's alleged boastfulness of his money and the prisoner's 
iiTegiilar attendance at his office. 

After Dreyfus had rebutted one or two of this witness's statements, 
Major Du Chatelet was called. He described the alleged confidences of 
Dreyfus in regard to women and gambling. 

Maitre Demange expressed surprise at the fact that the witness had 
not mentioned this at the court-martial of 1894, to which Major Du 
Chatelet replied : 

"What! Here was a man accused of one of the most heinous crimes, 
and you think I ought to have retailed his confidences in regard to women 
and gambling. Nonsense ! " 

Dreyfus briefly corrected some of Du Chatelet's statements, and then 
M. Dubreuil, who described himself as a private gentleman, took the 
stand. He testified as to how he was introduced to Dreyfus by a certain 
M. Bodson, at whose house the witness afterward dined in company with 
Dreyfus and a German attacht^, whose name he did not remember. 

Continuing, M. Dubreuil said he was greatly astonished at the " suspi- 
cious familiarity" between the attach^ and Dreyfus, and that, perceiving 
they disapproved of his presence, M. Dubreuil ceased his visits to M. 
Bodson. When the latter asked the reason of this, saying, according to 
the witness, that Dreyfus was the friend and even the lover of his wife, 
and asking witness's advice as to how to get rid of her, witness asked M. 
Bodson if he had proofs, and Bodson is said to have replied : 

"Proofs! Yes, I have even proofs enough to drive Dreyfus out of the 
French army." 

Witness, however^ was unable to learn what M. Bodson referred to. 

When he was pressed to describe more clearly the alleged German 
attach^, M. Dubreu'l replied that he did not know his name, but was told 
he was attached to the German Embassy. 

M. Labori — Was he a military or civil attach^? 

M, Dubreuil — I do not remember, I do not know. Let Maitre La- 
bori put himself in my place [laughter], and he will see the difficulty of 
remembering the name of a stranger he met thirteen years ago. 

Dreyfus protested excitedly against the evidence of M. Dubreuil, who 
is a Parisian friend of M. de Beaurepaire ; but Colonel Jouaust exhorted 


him to be calm, promising the prisoner a chance to reply. This arrived 
shortly afterward, and Dreyfus thundered out: 

" I won't speak here of M. or Madame Bodson, except to say that my 
relations with Madame Bodson ceased in 1886 or 1887, since when I have 
never seen her. I wish simply to assert that the witness is lying. I 
never dined at M. Bodson's with any civil or military attache. The mat- 
ter must be cleared up. People must produce definite facts here, and not 
mere tittle-tattle. The name of the person with whom I am alleged to 
have dined must be ascertained. It must be known here who is lying 
and who is speaking the truth." 

Major Le Eond, a professor of the Military School, described his rela- 
tions with Esterhazy and Picquart, telling how Esterhazy attended the 
artillery manoeuvres of 1894 and 1896, and touching upon Picquart's sub- 
sequent inquiry as to whether in 1894 Esterhazy could have obtained 
secret documents relating to new inventions, to which the witness replied 
in the negative. 

The major added that during this interview Picquart said he spoke in 
behalf of the Minister of War. The witness added : 

" Colonel Picquart's manner in speaking of Esterhazy left me so little 
doubt that proofs of Esterhazy 's guilt existed that I asked if he had been 
arrested or was about to be taken into custody. Colonel Picquart replied 
that he had not yet obtained positive proof, but had the gravest presump- 
tions. " 

Major Le Eond also said that w^hen Colonel Picquart questioned him 
in 1896 as to the possibility of Esterhazy 's possessing knowledge of artil- 
lery matters, the witness replied that Esterhazy seemed anxious to learn 
something about artillery, but his questions, while displaying intelligence 
and alertsess of mind, showed comparatively little acquaintance on the 
subject. Esterhazy, he added, could only have consulted the Firing Man- 
ual through the witness, and had he done so his action, though not irreg- 
ular, would have remained in the major's memory. 

Here Colonel Picquart jumped up and denied that he mentioned es- 
pionage to Major Le Eond, or that he spoke in behalf of the Minister of 
War. But the major adhered to his statements, and asserted that Pic- 
quart's memory was playing him false. 

At this juncture Colonel Jouaust announced that it was Esterhazy's 


turn to speak, but that, as he was not present, the evidence which he gave 
before the Court of Cassation would be read. 

The clerk of the court accordingly read Esterhazy's deposition. 

The chief aim of Esterhazy, in his testimony before the Court of Cas- 
sation, delivered January 24, 1899, was to show that in 1897-98 he was 
protected by Du Paty de Clam, Henry, and their subordinates, acting un- 
der orders from Generals de Boisdeffre, Gonse, and de Pellieux. He re- 
fused to make any declaration in regard to tho bordereau, in language which 
was interpreted against him by the Court of Cassation in its judgment re- 
garding a revision of the Dreyfus case. 

M. Labori asked that three letters addressed by Esterhazy to the Pres- 
ident of the Republic should be read. 

The following are passages from those letters. In the first letter he 
said : 

"My house is illustrious enough in the annals of French history and 
in those of the great European causes, for the Government of my country 
to take care not to allow my name to be dragged in the mud. I address 
myself, therefore, to the supreme head of the army and to the President of 
the Republic, and I ask him to put an end to the scandal, as he can and 
ought to do. 

" If I should have the sorrow not to be listened to by the supreme 
head of my country, my precautions are taken for my appeal to reach the 
ears of my heraldic chief, to the sovereign of the Esterhazy family, the 
Emperor of Germany. He is a soldier, and will know how to set the 
honor of a soldier, even an enemy, above the mean equivocal intrigues of 
politics. He will dare to speak out loud and strong to defend the honor 
of ten generations of soldiers. It is for you, as President of the Republic, 
to judge if you should force me to carry the question into that region. 
An Esterhazy fears not anything or anybody, if not God." 

In his second letter Esterhazy said : 

" I am at bay and compelled to use all means in my power. A gen- 
erous woman, who warned me of the horrible plot woven against me by 
friends of Dreyfus, with the assistance of Colonel Picquart, has since been 
able to procure for me among other documents the photograph of a paper 
which she succeeded in getting out of that officer. 

" This paper, stolen in a foreign legation by Colonel Picquart, is most 


compromising for certain diplomatic personages. If I neither obtain sup- 
port nor justice, and if my name come to be pronounced, this photograph, 
which is to-day quite safe abroad, will be immediately published." 

In the third letter he said : 

" This document is protection for me, since it proves the scoundrelism 
of Dreyfus, and is a danger for my country, because its publication, with 
the facsimile of writing, will force France to humiliate herself or to de- 
clare war. You, who are above empty quarrels in which my honor is at 
stake, do not leave me imder the obligation of choosing between two alter- 
natives equally horrible. Compel the Pontius Pilate of politics to make 
a clear, precise declaration instead of manoeuvring to retain the voice of 
friends of Barabbas. 

"All letters that I have written will shortly reach the hands of one 
of my relatives, who has had the honor this summer to receive two em- 
perors. What will the whole world think when it learns of the cowardly, 
cold cruelty with which I have been allowed to struggle in my agony 
without help, without advice? My blood will be upon your heads." 

General Gonse said he desired to reply to Esterhazy's statements. 
During the course of his observations, the general said Esterhazy's allega- 
tion that he was the right-hand man of the General Staff was absolutely 

The general then proceeded to refer to his avoidance of Esterhazy dur- 
ing the Zola trial. 

"I considered him to be a compromising person," said the witness, 
" and I was not wrong. If Esterhazy was permitted to go free at the time 
of the judicial inquiry, it was by order of General Saussier, who would 
not accept the advice of the General Staff nor of the officers under him, 
however high their rank. It was Major Du Paty de Clam alone who 
compromised the entire Headquarters Staff by his imprudence. [Sensa- 

" If I now say so for the first time it is because the case against Du 
Paty de Clam had been dismissed. I could not have spoken earlier with- 
out seeming to accuse a prisoner." 

The general then attempted to explain the intervention of the Head- 
quarters Staff in the choice of Esterhazy's witnesses at the time of his 
prosecution by Colonel Picquart, and said he, the witness, was convinced 


Du Paty de Clam was only connected with the late Lieutenant-Colonel 
Henry and not with Esterhazy. 

M. Labori said he desired to show if General Gonse did not consider 
himself in some measure responsible for the proceedings of Du Paty de 

The general replied in the negative, and added that he was conscious 
that he had always done his duty. The witness admitted, however, that 
Du Paty de Clam was not altogether innocent of a share in the appearance 
of the " Dixi " article, which appeared in the Libre Parole, and gave the 
public the first information regarding the character of the secret dossier 
and the intrigues against Colonel Picquart. 

When General Gonse was asked what he thought of Du Paty de 
Clam's interviews with Maitre Tezenas, Esterhazy's counsel, he replied : 

" Esterhazy was a sort of special prisoner. He retained his liberty, 
not because he was under the protection of the General Staff, but because 
General Saussier so ordered." 

Thereupon M. Labori remarked that General Saussier acted in this 
matter because he had been deceived by the Headquarters Staff in regard 
to Esterhazy, adding : 

"That is a point which it is very important to emphasize." 

The general admitted that were two interviews between Du Paty de 
Clam and M. Tezenas, after which, witness said, he ordered them to stop. 

General de Boisdeffre at this point took the occasion to re-defend 

"I ask leave," he said, "only to tell the court that I give the most 
absolute contradiction to Esterhazy's evidence." 

Then turning to the counsel for defence, the general added : 

" If I were not here as a witness I would ask permission to say, in re- 
gard to these falsehoods, that I despise them and repel them with the 
scorn they deserve." 

General Lebelin de Dionne, governor of the Military College, then tes- 
tified to Dreyfus's character at college. The prisoner, he said, displayed 
great intelligence, but had a deplorable temper. He recalled a remark of 
Dreyfus that the people of Alsace-Lorraine would be much happier under 
German rule than under the rule of France. 

The prisoner, referring to the recriminations mentioned by General 


Lebelin de Dionne, explained that during his first year at the Military 
College he attained very high marks, that the second year he almost held 
his place, when, he added, he heard that a member of the Examining 
Board had declared at a board meeting that, without knowing the pupils, 
he put mark 5 opposite the name of Dreyfus, simply because they did not 
want a Jew on the Headquarters Staff. The prisoner thought that his 
protests against this would, therefore, be readily understood. 

Eegarding the alleged remarks about Alsace-Lorraine, Dreyfus declared 
that the statement was the very opposite of his real sentiments. 

M. Lanquety, a mining engineer of Boulogne, who told the Court of 
Cassation that he had seen Dreyfus at Brussels during the summer of 
1894, followed. The witness said he could not now swear to when he 
saw Dreyfus there. 

The prisoner, rising, declared that it was in 1886, at the time of the 
Amsterdam exhibition, adding that was the only time he visited Brussels. 

"I met you, M. Lanquety," said Dreyfus, "at a restaurant in St. Hu- 
bert Arcade. We exchanged a few words." 

M. Lanquety admitted that the prisoner's statement was true. 


Chapter XXXVIIL 


When the trial of Captain Dreyfus was resumed at the Lyc(^e on Au- 
gust 24th, Colonel Jouaust, president of the court, ordered that the evi- 
dence given by M. Penot, a friend of the late Colonel Sandherr, chief of 
the Intelligence Department, be read. 

It was to the effect that Colonel Sandherr said the Dreyfus family 
offered him 150,000 francs on condition that he would clear Dreyfus. 

Maitre Demange, for the defence, disposed of this allegation by read- 
ing the actual note on the subject written by Sandherr, thereby proving 
that the Colonel's remarks had been distorted, Dreyfus's brothers only 
having said : 

" We are convinced of the innocence of our brother, and will spend our 
entire fortune to discover the truth.' 

The testimony of the first witness of the day, M. Dinolle, a former 
official of the Government, was also in favor of Dreyfus, as it was in di- 
rect contradiction of what ]\I. Dubreuil deposed yesterday regarding the 
alleged intimacy of Dreyfus with the German attach^ at the house of M. 
Bodson, a mutual friend. 

The president of the court then called the next witness, Colonel 
Maurel-Pries, who was president of the Dreyfus court-martial in 1894. 

As M. Labori lashed him with pointed questions the colonel hesi- 
tated, and then answered in a short, choppy manner, and when M. Labori 
finally disposed of him, the witness left the platform with the pale face 
and scared look of a man who had been awakened from a nightmare. 

The counsel had drawn from the colonel a confession that the secret 
dossier was communicated to the judges of the court-martial of 1894 by 
Colonel Du Paty de Clam. This avowal produced a sensation in court, 
and Maurel-Pries's declaration that he only read one of the documents 
did not affect the main fact, while his protestation that the reading of the 


document had no effect upon him, as his mind was already made up, was 
nullified by his subsequent declaration that this one document sufficed to 
convince him. 

M. Labori pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of the offi- 
cers of the Headquarters Staff regarding the importance and nature of the 
contents of the bordereau, and asked General Mercier where Dreyfus could 
have obtained particulars about the hydro-pneumatic brake? 

The general hotly objected to being asked to repeat his evidence, and 
M. Labori, equally warmly, said : 

"I am only asking for definite statements." 

Mercier then said he thought Dreyfus might have had cognizance of 
the brake at Bourges, adding: 

" In any case, he had a better chance to obtain such knowledge than 
Esterhazy could possibly have had." 

M. Labori — General Mercier says, "Dreyfus might have had cogniz- 
ance." I desire to emphasize that expression. We shall now prove Drey- 
fus could not have had cognizance of the brake. 

Counsel proceeded to demonstrate how rigorously the secret of the 
construction of the brake was guarded, and asked why, in 1894, the 
charges regarding the Eobin shells were not dwelt upon ? 

General Mercier — That arises from the simple fact that it was not 
known until 1896 or 1897 that information on the subject was being di- 
vulged. The existence of treachery in regard to the distribution of heavy 
artillery among the army corps was unknown until 1896. 

The passages-at-arms between M. Labori and General Mercier were 
followed with the keenest interest. Both men were wary and mutual 
suspicious of each other, and there was considerable acerbity. Colonel 
Jouaust at times finding difficulty in preventing the discussion from wan- 
dering outside legal paths. 

Continuing, M. Labori asked why General Mercier did not have a re- 
port prepared regarding the confessions Dreyfus is alleged to have made 
to Captain Lebrun-Eenault. 

General Mercier — The question of the confessions was of no impor- 
tance, as a revision of the case seemed impossible. 

M. Labori — What does General Mercier think of Esterhazy and the 
part he played ? 


General Mercier — I do uot know Esterhazy, and I do not think abuut 
him at all. 

M. Labori — Did he know you at his trial in 1898? 

General Mercier — No. 

Colonel Jouaust — General Mercier was not Minister of War then. 

M. Labori — This is most interesting. General Mercier declares he 
knows nothing of the trial of 1898. 

General Mercier — I know nothing of it. I leave that to the court- 
martial which tried Esterhazy. I have only to answer in court for my 
acts, and I refuse you the right to question me about my thoughts. 

Colonel Jouaust, addressing M. Labori, said : 

" You are reverting to the evidence of General Mercier ? " 

M. Labori — My object in interrogating the witness is to revert to his 

General Mercier — I protest against the word "interrogating," for I am 
not a prisoner. 

"Interrogatory," in Freoch law, is generally applied to the examina- 
tion of an accused person by a magistrate. 

M. Labori — It is not a question of "interrogatory"; I used the word in 
the most respectful sense. Will General Mercier say what he means by 
the charge preferred against the partisans of Dreyfus of having spent 
35,000,000 francs? What was this sum used for? The amount is simply 

General Mercier — I might just as well ask you. 

M. Labori — Do you mean to suggest that it was spent in advertise- 
ments and in buying consciences? 

General Mercier — I say nothing whatever. 

Counsel next wished to know why the bordereau was communicated 
to the court-martial of 1894, when it was considered impossible to show 
the other documents of the secret dossier. 

General Mercier — Because the bordereau was not dated, not signed, 
and its place of origin could be concealed. 

M. Labori pointed out that the place of origin had been mentioned in 
court, and then asked for explanations in regard to the perpetration of the 
1894 forgery. 

The cross-examination of General Mercier became more and more 


heated, and so rapid that it was difficult to follow, and many of the an- 
swers were confusing. As the questions of counsel touched upon the 
secret dossier and a certain document in blue pencil, General Gonse, Gen- 
eral lioget, ]\I. Gribelin, and Major Lauth also participated in the discus- 
sion, which almost degenerated into a wrangle. 

Major Lauth said he believed a clue to the blue-pencil document ex- 
isted before the trial of 1894, and M. Labori asked why, in that case, it 
was not produced at the trial, since it incriminated the prisoner? 

General Mercier said he did not know of this clue, and Major Lauth 
disclaimed all responsibility in the matter, as he was not connected with 
the preliminary inquiry. 

General Gonse said the document had been in the possession of Colo- 
nel Sandherr, [sensation] and it was by him placed in the secret dossier 
for comparison with other papers. 

M. Labori asked for explanations in regard to the commentary on the 
secret dossier, and General Mercier admitted he destroyed it in 1897. 

General Gonse, who was questioned on the same subject, declared that 
it was by order of General de Boisdeffre that he returned the commen- 
tary to General Mercier. 

Answering further questions, Mercier said the Panizzardi telegram 
was not communicated to the court-martial in 1894. He was ordered by 
General de Boisdeffre not to include it in the secret dossier. 

Counsel next discussed the three-page document, claiming that the 
false rendering of the Panizzardi telegram was to correct it and point 
directly to Dreyfus as the traitor. 

Mercier asked to be allowed to converse with General Chanoine before 
attempting to explain. General Chanoine thereupon advanced and ex- 
plained about the document, which had been handed him by General 
Mercier. He said he noticed inaccuracies in it, and resolved not to use 
it. Witness, however, had been carried away in testifying, and read a 
page of the document, and it was after a friendly conversation with Maitre 
Labori that he read the entire document in court, at General Mercier's 
request, and returned him the document. 

General Mercier acknowledged the accuracy of General Chanoine's 
statement, adding that it was Colonel Du Paty de Clam who gave him 
the document. 


Counsel had the document reread, and referred to the two versions of 
the two telegrams of November 2d, one designating Dreyfus as communi- 
cating documents to Germany. M. Labori pointed out that M. Paleo- 
logue of the Foreign Office denied that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
had communicated this version, and asked why General Mercier had re- 
ceived it through Du Paty de Clam. 

At this juncture General Eoget mounted the platform and expressed 
surprise at this "idle controversy being resumed." [Cries of " Oh ! Oh ! "] 

The general asked that Major Maton, who assisted in deciphering the 
telegram, be called, and counsel protested against the application of the 
word "idle" to any questions he thought proper to ask. 

General Chanoine said that he communicated the document to General 
Eoget, while enjoining absolute privacy on the subject. 

When asked if he accepted responsibility for the document. General 
Chanoine replied in the affirmative, adding, however, the admission that 
he had made a mistake. 

Colonel Jouaust intimated that the court ouglit to take no notice of 
the document in question. 

Dreyfus here gave a detailed story of how he employed his time at 
Bourges from October, 1889, to February, 1890. He said that as he was 
preparing for his examinations he had no time to go to caf& or to think 
of anything outside of his duties. This was a reply to General Mercier's 
assertion that he could have learned the secret of the hydro-pneumatic 
brake there. The prisoner said : 

"I was promoted to be a captain on September 12, 1889, and re- 
mained at Bourges from October, 1889, to February, 1890, when the writ- 
ten examination at the Military College began. I was then called to 
Paris, obtained two months' leave, was married in April, and I spent four 
months at Bourges. As I was preparing for examination I had no time 
to go to caf^s or to think of anything outside of my duties." 

General Piisbourg, who was commander of the Republican Guard in 
Paris in 1894, was the next witness. He described the scene with Cap- 
tain Lebrun-Eenault, when the witness learned of Dreyfus's alleged con- 
fessions to Captain Lebrun-Eenault the day after the prisoner's degra- 

In conclusion General Eisbourg eulogized the services of Captain Le- 


brun-Eenault, and said that before the incident of the confession there 
was nothing against him. He was an excellent officer, a good comrade, 
and incapable of injuring any on«. 

After being asked the usual question, Dreyfus protested against Gen- 
eral Eisbourg's evidence. 

"I am surprised," the prisoner said, "that he, Captain Lebrun-Eenault, 
could have made the statement attributed to him. On the way from the 
prison of La Sante Captain Lebrun-Eenault shook hands with me, a fact 
which is in contradiction of his statement. Besides, when such a terrible 
charge has been hanging over a man who has resisted it for five years, 
witnesses should not come here merely to speak their beliefs, but ought 
to bring proofs, positive proofs. Otherwise I am completely nonplussed 
as to how I can reply." [Sensation.] 

Continuing, Dreyfus said: 

" Eeference was also made to confessions. I will state the exact terms 
of the so-called confession of mine. The day Captain Lebrun-Eenault and 
I were together in the room I said to him : 

"'I am innocent. I will declare it in the face of the whole people. 
That is the cry of my conscience. You know that cry. I repeated it all 
thorugh the torture of my degrada,tion.' 

Afterward I added, referring to the visit of Du Paty de Clam : ' The 
Minister is well aware that I am innocent.' 

"What I meant to intimate was that I had apprised the Minister, in 
response to the steps Du Paty de Clam had taken against me, that I was 
innocent. Du Paty de Clam visited me and asked for informaXicai. I 
replied to him: 

"'I am innocent, absolutely innocent.' 

" I replied verbally to Du Paty de Clam and in writing to the Minister 
that I was perfectly innocent. That is what I meant by the words: 
' The Ministry is well aware that I am innocent.' 

"Then I reverted to the visit of Du Paty de Clam, and said to Captain 
Lebrun-Eenault : 

"'Du Paty de Clam asked me if I had not given documents of no im- 
portance in order to obtain others in exchange.' 

" I replied that not only was I absolutely innocent, but that I desired 
the whole matter should be cleared up. Then I added that I hoped that 


within two or three jears my iunocence would be established. I told 
Du Paty de Clam that I wanted full light on the matter; that an injury 
had been done, and that it was impossible for the Government to fail to 
use its influence to discover the whole truth. 

" ' The Government,' I said, ' has means, either through the military 
attachf^s or through diplomatic channels, to reach the truth. It is awful 
that a soldier should be convicted of such a frightful crime. Consequently, 
it seems to me, I who asked only for truth and light, that the Govern- 
ment should use all the means at its disposal to secure that light.' 

" Du Paty de Clam replied : 

" ' There are interests at stake higher than yours. These channels 
cannot be employed.' 

" He added, however, that the inquiries would be continued. It was 
on the strength of Du Paty de Clam's promise to try what means could 
be found to reach the truth and end this awful injury, that I said I 
hoped that in two or three years my innocence would be proved, for Du 
Paty de Clam told me that the investigation, which would be of the most 
delicate nature, could not be undertaken immediately. 

" I think I have expressed my whole mind. If you still have any 
doubt, I ask you. Colonel, to present it to me." 

The prisoner's remarks deeply impressed his hearers. 

At the request of M. Demange, General Mercier was recalled and 
asked to explain why, having sent Du Paty de Clam to Dreyfus to dis- 
cover the amount of the injury Dreyfus had done, he had not followed up 
his investigations. 

General Mercier — I did not feel called upon to do so. 

Colonel Jouaust — Tell us. General, why, when you were apprised of 
the confession, you did not send some one to Dreyfus to try to get a sub- 
stantiation and discover what he had not told Du Paty de Clam. 

General Mercier — Dreyfus had written me that he refused to discuss 
the confessions with Du Paty de Clam, and I took no further steps. 

Colonel Jouaust — But, since the prisoner seemed to have begun mak- 
ing avowals of his guilt, why did you not follow the matter up? 

General Mercier — I might, perhaps, hare thought of it. But it did 
not occur to me. 

The prisoner again protested that the inquiry ought to have served to 


destroy the fiction of a confession, to which such importance is now at- 
tached. Continuing, Dreyfus said : 

" Will you permit me. Colonel, to make a small remark with reference 
to the fiction of my confessions? I remained in the prison of La Sante 
for two or three weeks and saw M. Demange during that period, and also 
then and while I was at the lie de E^ I wrote to the Minister of War 
and others. 

" I believed the letters I wrote are contained in the secret dossier. I 
believe I also wrote to the head of the state. How is it I was never 
asked about the legend of mj confession, that I was in a position to de- 
stroy immediately? I never heard a word of it. It was only four years 
later, in January, 1899, when interrogated by the commissioners sent by 
the Court of Cassation, that I heard of this fiction. What I do not un- 
derstand is that while I was still in France no one spoke to me of this 
fiction, which could have been disposed of before the egg was hatched by 
proving it a false legend and nothing more." 

M. de Veruine, Special Commissary of the Minister of War, deposed 
that Colonel Picquart was ordered to have Esterhazy watched. Witness 
informed General Gonse, and the latter was advised to continue the inves- 
tigation discreetly. On several occasions, witness continued, Esterhazy 
was seen entering the German Embassy, always quite openly, but dressed 
in civilian clothes. 

M. de Veruine saw Esterhazy enter the German Embassy on October 
23, 1897. He^stayed there an hour, and drove to the Credit Foncier (a 
financial institution), whence he went to the office of La Patrie. 

M. Labori — What does General Eoget think of the part played by 
Esterhazy ? 

General Eoget — I have said that the part played by Esterhazy escaped 
me completely. 

M. Labori — General Eoget, however, spoke of the syndicate as though 
it was a public institution. 

General Eoget — Exactly, it is a public institution. Everybody talks 
of it. 

M. Labori — But General Eoget mentioned an offer of 600,000 francs 
to Esterhazy. I insist upon asking General Eoget what he thinks of Es- 
terhazy 's visit to Colonel Schwartzkoppen (the German military attach^) cu 


October 23, 1897, the same day as the interview in Mont Souris Park, a 
visit during the course of which it is known Esterhazy threatened to 
commit suicide if the German military attach^ refused to declare that he 
(Esterhazy) was not the author of the bordereau? 

General Eoget — It is not for me to say what I think of it. 

M. Labori, resuming his seat, said, "Very good." [Loud and pro- 
longed laughter.] 

Colonel Fleur, retired, testified to the numerous alleged inaccuracies 
in Colonel Sandherr's evidence before the Court of Cassation. Cordier 
told the witness that the dismissal of himself and Colonel Sandherr was 
a beginning of a Jewish revenge, and added that the Jews had influenced 
General de Boisdeffre. Cordier also said he had not doubted the guilt of 

The witness dramatically added : 

" "What was my stupefaction when, later, I heard Colonel Cordier ex- 
press ideas diametrically opposite to those he expressed to me ! " 

Asked if he desired to reply to the witness, Dreyfus said : 

" I have nothing to say. I only reply to facts. I will not reply to 
lies. If you attach the slightest importance to what has been said, I be- 
seech you, with all my heart, to make a most complete inquiry for the 
most dazzling truth. That is what I ask of you, Colonel, and of the mem- 
bers of the court-martial." 

Colonel Cordier, who was Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Office in 
1894, was called. He protested against the conditions under which he 
was summoned, without being released from his oath of professional se- 
crecy, and also protested at the manner in which the summons was 

The witness expatiated on the series of schemes of which he claimed 
he had been the victim, to the amusement of the court, until Colonel 
Jouaust invited him to curtail his recriminations and proceed with his 
testimony, to which Cordier genially replied : 

" I am coming to that, Colonel. I'll reach it in less than five min- 
utes. You will see how I shall cut it short! " 

Colonel Cordier, who is said to be given to excessive drinking, caused 
shouts of laughter by interlarding his remarks with the expression : " Full 
stop. That's all," 


Even the judges joined in shrieks of laughter at the colonel's testi- 

Colonel Cordier could dnly testify as to certain facts, since he was not 
released from professional secrecy. Colonel Jouaust said he would ask 
the Minister of War to release Cordier from his oath, and that he would 
then be recalled. *= 

M. George Charles Alfred Marie Millin de Grandmaison, deputy from 
the Saumur District of Maine-et-Loire, who is classed as a Eoyalist, 
though registered as a liberal Republican, next appeared as a witness and 
repeated the testimony he had given before the Court of Cassation. 

He recalled a conversation he had with an English friend, Mr. Charles 
Baker, who said he was assured Dreyfus was innocent because he had seen 
a letter from Colonel Schwartzkoppen affirming the prisoner's innocence. 
Baker, it seems, also mentioned numerous documents showing that certain 
French officers, not including Dreyfus, were spies, and Baker asked the 
witness to publish the documents, but without proofs of their genuineness, 
as Emperor "William did not wish to intervene. 

The witness, after protesting against foreign interference in French 
affairs, repudiated the idea that a French officer could be sentenced be- 
cause he was a Jew. 

M. de Grandmaison concluded by saying: 

"I adjure the Court to acquit the prisoner unhesitatingly if it believes 
him innocent, [laughter] and to convict him if it believes him guilty." 

M. Demange bitterly complained that the witnesses of the prosecution 
were allowed to air their personal opinions and appeal to the gallery, at 
which M. de Grandmaison retorted : 

"Anyway the defenders of Dreyfus are being assisted by foreigners. 
Their cause must be very bad to necessitate recourse to such help." 

M. Labori invited the witness to define what he meant by foEeign in- 
tervention, particularly pointing out the alleged contradictions in the 
statements of foreign personages. 

The witness quoted the declarations of the German Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, Count von Buelow, according to one of which, he said, the Ger- 
man Government and Embassy were not acquainted with either Dreyfus 
or Esterhazy, while in another statement Von Buelow implicated the Ger- 
man Headquarters Staff and Embassy in connection with Esterhazy. M. 


Labori and the German Government might very well not know Dreyfus, 
but Esterhazy might be known to the German Espionage Bureau. 

M. Mertian de Muller, a friend of M. de Beaurepaire, followed. He 
described a visit which he made to Emperor William's palace at Potsdam, 
and said that at one point the guide announced that they were about to 
enter the Emperor's room. At the bottom of the room witness noticed 
his Majesty's bed, and witness was admiring the canvases on the wall, 
when he remarked a small table, upon which was an army list and a 
newspaper, the Libre Farole, bearing a postage-stamp. Written on the 
newspaper, in blue pencil, the witness asserted were certain words in 
German regarding the meaning of which ]\I. de Muller was certain. 
They were: "Dreyfus has been arrested." 

M. Demange — You are quite sure you were in the Emperor's bed- 

M. de Muller — I shoiild think so. But his name was not written on 
the door. 

Eegarding the German word meaning "arrested," the witness, when 
cross-examined, could not positively say he had distinctly read or under- 
stood it. 

M. de Muller, who is a paralytic, left the witness box assisted by an 

Colonel Fleur and ]\I. de Grandmaison momentarily reappeared on the 
scene. But Colonel Jouaust, evidently wearying of the prolonged trial, 
quickly called the next witness. 

Colonel Picquart's former orderly in Tunis, a man named Savignaud, 
testified to posting letters from Picquart to M. Scheurer-Kestner, the for- 
mer Vice-President of the Senate, who has taken so much interest in the 
Dreyfus case, in May and June, 1897. 

But ]\I. Labori pointed out that M. Scheurer-Kestner absolutely denied 
the receipt of letters under those dates. 

The court then adjourned. 


Chapter XXXIX. 


When the session of August 25tli was opened, the clerk of the 
court read a medical certificate, signed by two doctors whose names were 
unknown to the audience, declaring it was impossible for Du Paty de 
Clam to leave his bed and come to Pennes to testify. 

Maitre Labori asked President Jouaust to instruct two well-known 
medical men to examine Du Paty de Clam, but Colonel Jouaust re- 

Rowland Strong, an English newspaper man, was then called to the 
witness bar. He deposed to the fact that Major Count Esterhazy con- 
fessed to him that he wrote the famous bordereau. 

Henri Weill, a former officer of the Headquarters Staff, was then 
called. But he was absent, and his deposition was read. M. Weill's state- 
ment, in substance, was that Esterhazy told him in 1894 that Dreyfus 
was innocent, but that this would not prevent his conviction, because he 
was a Jew. 

The next witness was M. Gobert, an expert of the Bank of France, 
who could claim the honor of being the first man in France to have de- 
clared in favor of Dreyfus, having reported, on examining the documents 
in the case, that Esterhazy, and not Dreyfus, wrote the bordereau. 

This witness opened his deposition with a brief personal statement 
protesting against being characterized as a " doubtful expert " by the mili- 
tary party. 

"But," he added, in tones of profound pity, and turning toward Drey- 
fus, " I have no right to complain, and am silent when I see before me the 
unfortimate man who sits there." 

A murmur of approval from the audience greeted these words of sym- 

M. Gobert wag most emphatic in attributing the bordereau to Ester- 


hazy. He declared the bordereau was written in a running natural hand, 
and said there was no tracing or other trickery. 

M. Gobert protested against the insinuation that he was an inter- 
ested witness. He referred to his thirty years of service, during which 
he had reported on thousands of documents, and added, visibly affected : 

"I protest against the term ' interested expert.' " 

The court closely followed M. Gobert's exhaustive story of his exami- 
nation of the bordereau and his interview with Generals Mercier, de Bois- 
deffre, and Gonse. 

M. Gobert asserted that the handwriting of the bordereau was natural 
and fluent, but that it was almost illegible, whereas Dreyfus, even when 
writing rapidly, always wrote most legibly. 

The witness had asked General Gonse if an envelope accompanied the 
bordereau, as he, M. Gobert, wished to see what the writer's careful cali- 
graphy was like, explaining that the address of a letter is always in a 
firmer hand than its contents. 

General Gonse had refused the request on the ground that the witness 
must not know the name of the addressee. 

The General had also decided not to allow the bordereau to be photo- 
graphed, alleging that if the War OfHce photographers were allowed to 
photograph it all Paris would be acquainted with the bordereau the next 
day. [Laughter.] Thereupon the witness had remarked : 

"General Gonse, this is a very interesting confession." 

M. Gobert had then suggested that the work be intrusted to the Pre- 
fecture of Police, where ]M. Bertillon is the photographer. 

Until then, the witness also said, he had never heard of M. Bertillon 
ais a handwriting expert, saying he became an expert for this special occa- 
sion, when he was called into the War Office. [Laughter.] 

General Gonse, it appears from the testimony, had been greatly en- 
raged when he learned of the result of M. Gobert's examination of the 
bordereau, and visited the expert repeatedly. The latter always insisted 
upon learning the name of the suspect. 

"It was not proper," said M. Gobert, "for me to accuse any one with- 
out being perfectly cognizant of the facts, especially in circumstances of 
80 grave a nature. I would not eiccuse any gr^ anonymously, for to do 
SO would be contrary to the law." 


Amid laughter in court, the witness described how, from an examina- 
tion of an official report on Dreyfus, from which Dreyfus's name had been 
removed, M. Gobert had the malicious satisfaction of telling General 
Gonse the name of the officer they wanted to arrest. 

It was after M. Gobert had refused to incriminate Dreyfus that M. 
Bertillon had been intrusted with the examination of the bordereau, and, 
after a few hours' study, ]M. Bertillon positively attributed the bordereau 
to Dreyfus. From that time forward M. Gobert had heard no more of the 
Dreyfus case. He was not asked to submit a report, but had described to 
the then Minister of Justice, ]\I. Guerin, the circumstances in the case. 
M. Guerin, continued the witness, had intimated that "these were sol- 
diers' affairs," which did not concern him as Chief of the Civil Judiciary. 

General Gonse having alluded to certain undesirable acquaintances 
formed by M. Gobert, the latter replied, amid a sensation in court: 

"I emphatically protest against the insinuations of General Gonse. 
There is not a single word of truth in what he says." 

There was a further dispute between General Gonse and M. Gobert 
over circumstances in connection with the latter's examination of the 
bordereau. M. Gobert said that Colonel d'Abeville was present, but the 
colonel promptly advanced, and said he had never seen M. Gobert before 
to-day, adding: 

" If M. Gobert's other recollections are as exact as this, the court will 
draw its own conclusions." 

Dreyfus here declared in the most positive manner that he had never 
been at the Bank of France, where M. Gobert was employed, or had rela- 
tions with any one there. The prisoner reasserted that his sole desire was 
to know the truth. He admitted he had been engaged in various finan- 
cial operations, but said he had never asked either for written or verbal 
information from the Bank of France. 

M. Bertillon, the noted specialist in the measurement of the human 
body, was called as the next witness. To the surprise of the audience, 
he entered the court-room without a single paper, carrying a high hat in 
his hand instead. But the astonishment was short-lived, the first words 
of M. Bertillon being a request to permit his diagrams and papers to be 
brought in. 

The request was granted, and M. Bertillon retired for a moment. He 


returned at frhe head of a squad composed of an infantry sergeant and 
four privates, all staggering under the weight of immense leather satchels, 
bulging with documents, charts, etc., which they deposited on the stage 
as a roar of laughter echoed throughout the court. 

Even the judges were unable to repress a smile as they gazed on M. 
Bertillon's stage properties strewed over half of the platform. A table 
was brought in, upon which the plans he was using could be placed. 

The witness began by saying that only intelligent men could follow 
his explanations ; and the court was half emptied as the audience, after 
smiling at his extraordinary words and expressions, soon became bored and 
went out. 

M. Bertillon's deposition occupied the whole of this session. 

The court-room presented a curious scene while M. Bertillon, whom 
the Dreyfusards, in their most indulgent moments, describe as a "danger- 
ous maniac," spent the remaining hours of the session in explaining in 
unintelligible terms his "infallible system" of proving that Dreyfus was 
the author of the bordereau. The majority of the public, however, utterly 
unable to comprehend INI. Bertillon's theories, had left the court-room. 
Even "La Dame Blanche" (the White Lady) abandoned her post. 

In the mean while ]\I. Bertillon, with gestures and in the shrill 
pitched voice of a quack at a country fair, continued his monologue, pro- 
ducing every few minutes some fresh paper covered with wonderful hiero- 
glyphics. These papers he presented to the judges, who, with an expres- 
sion of owl-like wisdom, carefully examined them, their heads clustered 
together, their eyes gazing on the long, wide strips of paper, while M. 
Bertillon leaned over their table trying to explain his mystifying dia- 
grams. The copies were afterward passed to MM. Labori and Demange, 
who, however, apparently did not derive much benefit from their perusal. 

Dreyfus gazed at the scene with a look of stupefaction. 

The clearest utterance of M. Bertillon during the course of his demon- 
stration was that the handwriting of the bordereau " obeys a geometrical 
rhythm, of which I discovered the equation in the prisoner's blotting 

The audience watched him as he bent over the desk busily drawing 
letters, the judges gazing at him, until at the end of ten minutes the 
people and the judges became restlessly impatient, and Colonel Jouaust 


remarked that it was not necessary to copy the whole bordereau, and that 
a few lines would suffice. 

A few minutes later M. Bertillon arose, strode to the judges' table, 
and laid before them his copy. The judges, counsel, the Government 
Commissary, Major Carriere, and the clerk clustered around in one group, 
eager to see the result. Again the audience watched the strange spectacle 
until Colonel Jouaust shrugged his shoulders, and then the audience knew 
that M. Bertillon had failed to satisfy them. 

M. Bertillon noticed this, and said, apologetically : 

"I was too badly placed." 

Maitre Demange returned to the counsels' table and, in response to a 
look of inquiry from Dreyfus, whispered a few words to the prisoner with 
a shrug of his shoulders and a smile on his face. Dreyfus appeared per- 
fectly satisfied. 

M. Bertillon gave his testimony in the manner of a schoolboy reciting 
a lesson, to demonstrate technically how he reached the conviction of 
Dreyfus's guilt, reciting facts already published on April 22d. He said 
he proposed to prove to the court : 

" First — That the bordereau was a doctored document. 

" Second — That it could only be manufactured by the prisoner. 

" Third — That it had been written in a free hand by means of a key- 
word placed beneath tracing paper in such a way as to be quite visible." 

The witness, continuing, declared Dreyfus did not have recourse to 
imitating Esterhazy's free handwriting, because it required too long to 
study, and he used the tracing process because it was easier to learn and 
more likely to be successful. 

Suddenly the wandering attention of those remaining in the hall was 
riveted by the cryptographic remark, enunciated by M. Bertillon in loud 
tones : 

" We clearly have before us a fabricated document. The one word al- 
ways rests upon the other, with a divergence of 1.25 millimetres and 2.25 
millimetres. That is a phenomenon which is unnatural." 

M. Labori watched the specialist for a few moments, and then returned 
to his seat, holding up both hands and exclaiming : 

"It is most extraordinary." 

M. Bertillon continued his explanations, and caused a whirl in the 



braius of liis hearers. The audience, quite in the dark regarding the 
meaning of the technicalities, punctuated the queer expressions with peals 
of laughter. The members of the court-martial evidently tried hard to 
understand, while Dreyfus appeared fatigued, but endeavored to follow the 

"My theory," continued the witness, "was, in 1894, considered by the 
Ministry of War to be favorable to the prisoner. If the defence accepted 
it, they said, the long magisterial investigation would have to be recom- 
menced, and so," here the witness raised his voice and struck the table 
with his fist, " when the word ' grille ' [perforated card used for cipher] 
was uttered at the court-martial of 1894, the prisoner's face contracted. 
When I spoke of the fabrication of the bordereau he exclaimed : 

"'Oh, the wretch. He saw me write, then.' 

" I did not hear the remark, but when it was repeated to me it was a 
revelation. For, if innocent, the word ' fabrication ' would have delighted 
instead of frightened him." 


Chapter XL. 


When the court resumed its sessions on August 26th, M. Alphonse 
Bertillon, chief of the Anthropometric Department of the Paris Prefec- 
ture of Police, resumed his testimony, which had been interrupted on 
August 25th by adjournment. 

The comic aspect of M. Bertillon's performance again appealed to the 
risibilities of the audience, though the judges paid close attention to his 
demonstrations, which were concluded at 8:30 a.m., the witness saying, 
in a declamatory tone : 

" I am convinced that the writer of the bordereau is the prisoner sit- 
ting there." 

Drefyus heard him without flinching and with an expression of dis- 
dain, which he showed in a still more noticeable manner just before the 
specialist's testimony, when M. Demange handed him a paper which M. 
Bertillon had submitted to the judges as convincing proof of the guilt of 
the accused. The prisoner perused it for a few moments, and then handed 
it back with a shrug of his shoulders and without uttering a w^ord. 

Eeferring to his papers which were seized at the War Office, Dreyfus 
said it would not be strange to see notes, written by officers, altered. He 
added : 

"I was shown yesterday (August 25th) a note relative to General de 
Miribel. There were in the document corrections, made by the chief of 
the department himself, which shows that immediately after having 
written a note he handed it to the chief of the department." 

In regard to the so-called "blotting-pad letter," Dreyfus said: 

"This letter is perfectly genuine. Madame Dreyfus can testify to that 
point. No one here will doubt the word of Madame Dreyfus, and you, 
gentlemen, less than any one," he added, looking steadily at the judges. 

Captain Valerie of the artillery, called by the prosecution to explain 


M. Bertillon's system and to give an opinion on the subject, said he 
thought M. Bertillon's evidence might be summarized in a sentence: 

" The bordereau was doctored and the document fabricated by means 
of secret writing, or writing with a key, the key-word ' interest ' being 
found on the ' blotting-pad letter ' attributed to Mathieu DreyfUs. 

"The system," continued the captain, "was evidently devised to offer 
the prisoner two means of escape. Either he would deny being the au- 
thor of the bordereau by pointing to the difference of the handwriting, or 
he would contend it was a plot, by showing the documents were traced 
over his writings. 

" However complicated the ingenuity of the human mind might ap- 
pear," continued the witness, "I propose to show: 

" First — That the document was fabricated. 

"Second — That it was fabricated by means of the key- word 'interest.' 

"Third — That documents written by the prisoner in the War Office 
contained words written by means of the same key. 

"Fourth — That the forgery was intended to enable the prisoner to 
plead there was a plot against him. 

"Fifth — That the prisoner alone could be the writer." 

Captain Yalerio then attempted to prove his hypothesis, traversing 
practically the same ground as already laboriously covered by M. Bertil- 
lon, during the course of which he pointed to what he alleged were con- 
clusive proofs of the value of M. Bertillon's system. 

The witness declared that as he wished to remain on scientific ground, 
he would not attempt to define the motive actuating the writer of the 
bordereau. But, he added, he was perfectly convinced it could only have 
been Dreyfus. Esterhazy had declared himself to be the writer, but that 
could not be true, because it had been proved the bordereau was forged. 

In conclusion. Captain Valerio declared the court now had in its pos- 
session material proof of the prisoner's guilt. [Sensation.] 

When Dreyfus was asked the usual question, the prisoner pointed out 
that the evidence of Captain Valerio was only a repetition of M. Bertil- 
lon's, and that, consequently, his reply to the latter applied equally to 

Eeference having been made to doctored words in minutes written by 
him at the War Office, Dreyfus pointed out that these minutes were writ- 


ten in the presence of witnesses. He also dwelt upon the fact that he 
had already acknowledged the genuineness of the "blotting-pad letter," 
which he reaffirmed, adding that the hypothesis that he doctored the bor- 
dereau in order to have means of defence fell to the ground of itself, since 
he had never attempted to turn the system to use. 

"All M. Bertillon's measures are false. All, without exception," ex- 
claimed the prisoner vehemently, amid excitement. 

There was a highly dramatic scene toward the end of the session. 
Maitre Labori asked to have Captain Freystaetter, of the Marine Infantr}'', 
one of the members of the court-martial of 1894 which convicted Drey- 
fus, called in contradiction of the desposition of Colonel Maurel-Pries, the 
presiding judge upon that occasion, who had testified that he only read one of 
the documents out of the secret dossier commimicated to the court-martial. 

The captain, who is a finely built officer, and who has a handsome, 
honest face, ascended the platform with a firm step and a fearless air. 
When he was asked to recount what occurred, he said his conviction of 
the guilt of the prisoner was formed by the evidence of the experts in 
handwriting, the deposition of Colonel Du Paty de Clam, "and," he con- 
tinued, " I must add, some slight influence was exercised over my mind 
by hearing the secret dossier read." 

The witness was then questioned as to whether one or more of the 
documents were read, and he said they were all read. This was in direct 
contradiction of Coloi^l Maurel-Pries, and M. Labori once demanded the 
confrontation of Captain Freystaetter with Colonel Maurel-Pries. The 
latter mounted the stage, and presented a miserable spectacle, his shifty 
eyes blearing out beneath heavy eyebrows. 

" How do you explain this ? " asked M. Labori. 

Then the colonel, at bay, replied savagely : 

" I said I only read one document. I did not say only one document 
was read." 

This statement called forth an outburst of hisses and indignant " Ohs ! " 
from the audience, which looked upon it as an infamous confession. 

The witness, trembling with shame, but evidently determined to fight 
to the last, threw a fierce look of hatred at M. Labori and the audience, 
as the gendarmes shouted : 

"Silence! Silence!" 









r/^%\r4 , 



After this the audience listened spellbound as Captain Fieystaetter, in 
a distinct, bold voice, told exactly what the documents of the dossi3r 
were, and how Colonel Maurel-Pries not only read these documents, but 
made comments on them. This was practically calling Maurel-Pries a 
liar, and the colonel glared at the captain ferociously. 

Freystaetter, however, was not dismayed, and his words, spoken in a 
tone of candor and fearlessness, must have carried conviction to every hearer. 

General Mercier then asked to be heard, and placed himself by the 
side of Maurel-Pries. The forbidding appearance of these two men, both 
dressed in civilian attire, was in striking contrast with the erect, unflinch- 
ing attitude of Freystaetter, who wore the smart uniform of a captain of 
artillery, with medals on his breast. It was a remarkable scene. 

General Mercier at once denied Captain Freystaetter's declaration that 
the Panizzardi dispatch was contained in the dossier. " It is a lie ! " 
[Tremendous sensation.] 

Captain Freystaetter, however, was undaunted, and replied, looking 
Colonel Jouaust straight in the face : 

"I swear that what I have said is true. And," Freystaetter added, "I 
not merely remember the dispatch, but I have a vivid recollection of the 
fact that the first words were, ' Dreyfus is arrested. Emissary warned.'" 

This emphatic declaration increased the sensation. 

General Mercier then made the self-saving reply that he did not make 
up the dossier, which was made up by the late Colonel Sandherr, Chief of 
the Intelligence Department. 

M. Labori was hotly indignant at General Mercier's equivocation, and 
asked Colonel Jouaust again and again to have special doctors make an 
official examination of Colonel Du Paty de Clam to see if he was really 
iacapable of giving evidence. But the president of the court refused, 
whereupon M. Labori, beside himself, cried : 

" Colonel Sandherr is dead ; Colonel Henry is dead, and Colonel Du 
Paty de Clam won't come here." 

Then counsel sat down, boiling with indignation. Colonel Jouaust 
told M. Labori not to make observations. 

The scene this day showed both Colonel Maurel-Pries and General 

Mercier in an odious light. Maurel-Pries was shown, to put it mildly, 

not to have told the truth, while Mercier, when cornered, threw the awk- 


ward responsibility for the illegalities of the court-martial of 1894 on 
dead men, as M. Labori pointed out. 

The audience had their hearts in their mouths from the moment Cap- 
tain Freystaetter opened his lips until the three confronted witnesses left 
the stage, and every moment a murmur of disgust and the general cry of 
" Oh !" burst from the hearers. 

General Mercier accused Captain Freystaetter of lying in the matter 
of the Eobin shell, concerning which there is a report accusing Dreyfus 
of communicating the details of the shell to Germany. 

Freystaetter had said that it was included in the secret dossier. 

"I have caught Captain Freystaetter in the very act of lying," said 
General Mercier, amid the greatest excitement in court, " for the Eobin 
shell was not delivered until 1895." 

Captain Freystaetter replied promptly, maintaining the truth of his 
previous statement, saying he referred to " a " shell and not to the Robin 
shell, and he spoke like an honest man. 

Colonel Maurel-Pries, on the other hand, when driven to confess, told 
untruths, and tried to wriggle out of it. He presented a despicable ap- 
pearance, his voice broken as though choking, while his limbs were shak- 
ing with suppressed, futile passion. 

This incident, which terminated with the evidence of Captain Frey- 
staetter, caused an immense impression on the audience. The Dreyfus- 
ards were jubilant. 

Dreyfus said he had nothing to ask the witnesses. Colonel Maurel- 
Pries, General Mercier, and Captain Freystaetter then left the stage. 

M. Paray-Javal, a draughtsman, was called for the defence. He was 
accompanied by a blackboard, upon which he proposed to refute a portion 
of M. Bertillon's problems. The witness said, amid laughter, that the 
demonstration would occupy no less than two hours. He then proceeded 
to chalk a number of caligraphic signs on the blackboard, and presented to 
the court photographs of the writing of the bordereau and the prisoner's 
handwriting, pointing out their dissimilarities and entering into elaborate 
explanations, which were not concluded when the court adjourned. 


Chapter XLL 


The fourth week of the trial of Captain Dreyfus opened in the Lyc^e 
Building on August 28th. 

The first witness called was M. Paray-Javal, the draughtsman, whose 
evidence was interrupted on August 26th by the adjournment of the 

"With the aid of a blackboard M. Paray-Javal demonstrated the fallacy 
of M. Bertillon's calculations, and criticised the latter's unfairness in not 
submitting Esterhazy's handwriting to the same tests as the prisoner's 
writing. At the same time, the draughtsman declared, even if M. Bertil- 
lon had done so, the results would not have proved anything. 

In conclusion M. Paray-Javal said, amid laughter, that he thought M. 
Bertillon was a very intelligent man, but that his system was false, and 
he, the witness, was convinced that only self-esteem prevented M. Ber- 
tillon from admitting his error. 

M. Bernard, an inspector of mines, who took high honors at the Poly- 
technic School, who followed M. Paray-Javal at the witness bar, said he 
appeared to refute a portion of M. Bertillon's evidence which was based 
on false calculations. As a matter of fact, he added, it was on such a 
basis that the whole system rested. 

In conclusion, M. Bemhard exhibited to the judges a plate represent- 
ing a page of current handwriting, and said : 

" If it was examined by M. Bertillon's system it will show certain 
peculiarities which would not be found upon the examination of fifty mil- 
lion other documents. M. Bertillon would therefore say the document was 
fabricated. But he would be wrong, for I borrowed the page from a re- 
port written by M. Bertillon himself." 

M. Bertillon demanded permission to reply to the witness, and Colo- 
nel Jouaust replied : 


" I cannot grant your request, and I will not grant such permission to 
any of the fourteen experts, except in the case of a personal explanation." 

M. Bertillon — I wish to speak of the manner in which I reconstructed 
the bordereau. 

Colonel Jouaust — Why, you are discussing the case. I cannot allow 
you to speak except in regard to a personal fact. 

The president's statement aroused loud laughter, amid which M. Ber- 
tillon, disconcerted, resumed his seat. 

M. Teysonnieres followed. He said he adhered in all respects to his 
report dated October 29, 1894, in which he expressed the opinion that 
the bordereau was the work of the writer of the documents seized at the 
prisoner's residence. For purposes of comparison, the witness lengthily 
criticised the bordereau letter by letter, pointing out resemblances to the 
prisoner's handwriting. 

M. Teyssonieres, in finishing his testimony, said he thought it was im- 
possible to find more tangible reasons than those which induced in him 
the belief, which he hoped the court would share. 

Replying to the court, M. Teyssonieres said he had not noticed that 
the prisoner's handwriting was illegible, and he had never seen the docu- 
ment dictated to Dreyfus. 

The copy of the bordereau made by Dreyfus was then handed to the 
witness, who declared it had never been given to him for purposes of 

The witness added that he would require three days to give an opinion 
upon it. He could not conclude his examination on the spot. He must 
have time. 

M. Charavay, the archivist and expert in ancient manuscripts, said : 

"I, with two colleagues (MM. Teyssonieres and Pelletier), though act- 
ing under separate instruction, was commissioned to examine the bor- 
dereau and a number of documents for comparison unsigned and in differ- 
ent handwritings. I examined, first, the latter documents, and by the 
process of elimination fixed upon one resembling the bordereau. I was 
then furnished with specimens of the handwriting in question, but was 
not told the name of the writer. I asked if the document could be re- 
garded as genuine, and was told the place whence it emanated, which 
could not be mentioned by me, and which could leave no doubt in regard 


to its value. I make this remark because I think it explains my opinion, 
for I could not consider a document of this nature which was not marked 
by a certain dissimilarity of handwriting. I therefore attributed to dis- 
similarity the differences I was careful to note in my report. 

"Now I must inform the court, that, in view of the fact that hand- 
writing which was not produced in 1S94, and which is evidently akin to 
the handwriting of the bordereau and the handwriting of Dreyfus, has 
since been submitted to me, I cannot maintain with the same degree of 
certainty the conclusions of my former report, and I can only make one 
statement, namely, that these two handwritings resemble the bordereau. 
I should, however, point out one of the typical dissimilarities, upon which 
I laid stress, between the writing of the bordereau and the documents 
submitted for comparison, namely, that the double ' s ' is not found in the 
new handwriting. In other words, the double ' s ' of the bordereau is 
found in Esterhazy's handwriting." 

After repeating the evidence he gave before the Court of Cassation, 
M. Charavay declared it was the new element, the handwriting of Ester- 
hazy, which led him to declare he did not adhere to his conclusions of 

In conclusion M. Charavay energetically protested against General 
Mercier's accusations, adding that what convinced him that he had made 
a mistake in 1894 was the publication of Esterhazy's letters, the discov- 
ery of the Henry forgery, the inquiry of the Court of Cassation, and Ester- 
hazy's confession. 

The conscience of the witness compelled him to say that in 1894 he 
was misled by similarity in handwriting. 

"It is a great relief to my conscience," M. Charavay added, "to be able 
to say, before you and before him who is the victim of my mistake, that 
the bordereau is not the work of Dreyfus, but of Esterhazy." 

An immense sensation was caused in court by this statement. 

Replying to Colonel Jouaust, the witness said that the mere examina- 
tion of the bordereau and the documents presented for comparison were 
sufficient to convince him that the bordereau was not written by Dreyfus. 

The prisoner, on being asked the customary questions, requested M. 
Charavay to give further particulars as to the reasons which led him to 
njodify his opinions in regard to the writer of the bordereau, whereupon 


the witness entered into a lengthy technical explanation. He told how 
he found unmistakable resemblances between the bordereau and Ester- 
hazy's writing. 

M. Pelletier, another expert, prefaced his evidence by saying he de- 
sired to make a definite statement on the point upon which he was in 
entire disagreement with General Mercier. The latter had testified that 
the witness refused to use certain documents submitted to him for com- 
parison in common with the other experts, and said he had been led to 
regard ]\I. Pelletier's work with some suspicion, because of certain inci- 
dents in which M. Pelletier, being summoned to appear simultaneously in 
two different courts, had written to both, excusing himself on the ground 
of attendance at the other. 

General Mercier declared this made him suspicious of M. Pelletier's 
report in favor of Dreyfus, inferring that his failure to comply with the 
summons of the examining magistrates in November, 1894, was connected 
with his report, whereas the report, the witness pointed out, was handed 
in on October 26th. 

"I have only to oppose facts to Mercier's inferences," said M. Pelle- 
tier. "Oa October 22d I was intrusted with the verification in question. 
I handed in my report October 26th, and it was only in November that 
I was summoned to undergo cross-examination on a complaint lodged by 
the military authorities. General Mercier, in short, had not the slightest 
reasons to suspect the conclusions which I had reached." 

After replying to a question or two from the court, M. Pelletier con- 
tinued : 

"After settling this personal matter there remains nothing but to 
maintain in their entirety my conclusions to the effect that there is no 
likeness between the writing of the bordereau and that of the prisoner." 

M. Couard, the official archivist and expert in the Esterhazy case in 
1897, then testified that he was instructed by Major Eavary to examine 
expertly the bordereau and specimens of Esterhazy's handwriting. The wit- 
ness insisted upon experimenting with the original bordereau and speci- 
mens of Esterhazy's caligraphy written by Esterhazy in the presence of 
experts. Beyond this the expert and Esterhazy had no relations. The 
latter therefore could not have influenced him, and the witness protested 
against M. Zola's accusations and adhered to his opinion of 1897, that the 


bordereau was not the work of Esterhazy. He, the witness, would wager 
his head on this. 

M. Couard said he was convinced the caligraphy of the bordereau was 
neither frank nor natural, and the writer, in his opinion, probably wished 
to imitate another person's handwriting. The letter of August 28th, the 
witness continued, although declared genuine by Esterhazy himself, seemed 
doubtful to M. Couard, who added that he believed Esterhazy would say 
anything he was wanted to say. 

Since 1897 the witness had not believed a word Esterhazy had said, 
and, he pointed out, there was nothing to prove Esterhazy would not a 
year hence say exactly the opposite of what he said now. 

Eeplying to a question, M. Couard, while reasserting that the bor- 
dereau was not the work of Esterhazy, declined to commit himself in 
regard to Dreyfus, whose handwriting, added the witness, he had never 
been called upon to examine. 

M. Varinard, with whom MM. Couard and Belhomme acted as ex- 
perts in the Esterhazy case, was the next witness. He adhered to his 
report that the bordereau was not the work of Esterhazy, and said he per- 
sisted in this opinion in spite of Esterhazy's statements to the contrary. 

The court then adjourned. 


Chapter XLII. 


The appearance of Colonel Cordier, formerly Deputy Chief of the In- 
telligence Department of the War Office, as the first witness at the Drey- 
fus court-martial, on August 29th, aroused great interest, as, since his 
previous appearance, the colonel has been released by the Minister of War 
from his oath of professional secrecy. Speaking in firm, audible tones, 
the colonel testified that on September 23, 1894, he left Paris on a fort- 
night's leave of absence, and that nothing was then known in the Statisti- 
cal Department of the War Office of the discovery of treason. 

Continuing, Colonel Cordier said that the day after he returned to 
Paris, Colonel Sandherr, who appeared greatly distressed, handed the wit- 
ness a copy of the bordereau on foolscap paper. Sandherr and Cordier 
animatedly discussed the bordereau, Sandherr considering it ample evi- 
dence of treason. 

The document was photographed and an investigation was opened, 
which resulted in arousing suspicions against Dreyfus. Prior to this 
there was no presumption of Dreyfus's guilt. It was on October 8th that 
the suspicions of the prisoner's guilt became definite. 

The witness said he believed the bordereau arrived at the War Office 
after September 24th. He could not say who received it. Very few 
officers were then aware that treason had been committed. The witness 
thought it necessary to enter into these particulars in reply to the state- 
ments of his assistant. Major Lauth, before the Court of Cassation. 

At this point, Major Lauth, rising in the centre of the court, ex- 
claimed : 


"I beg leave to speak, Colonel." 
Proceeding with his testimony. Colonel Cordier said he believed the 
bordereau was handed to Colonel Sandherr by Colonel Henry. 

Cordier then explained what was the " ordinary channel" by which 


information reached the War Office. The "ordinary channel," the witness 
said, was a very clever spy, attached to the Intelligence Department, who 
had the habit of visiting great houses, but who preferred the company of 
servants to the company of their masters. 

Cordier then described the method of piecing documents, and showed 
how the bordereau was pasted together by Henry, who was usually in- 
trusted with this work. The witness said piecing documents possessed 
fascination for the men who were engaged upon such work, "like the pas- 
sion of fortune-telling by cards." 

"Men who have once pieced paper," said the witness, amid laughter, 
"will always continue to do so." 

Eeferring to the spy who has been dubbed as the "ordinary channel," 
Colonel Cordier said the former did not directly receive the documents 
from the Embassy from which they were abstracted. A woman, he ex- 
plained, served as an intermediary, and, the "ordinary channel" having 
been closed, it was found necessary to negotiate directly with the inter- 
mediary, otherwise the woman, with whom rendezvous were usually made 
in churches. But, as the "ordinary channel's" services were still avail- 
able elsewhere, his pay was continued. 

Possibly, continued the witness, the spy endeavored to renew his rela- 
tions with the Embassy. 

Cordier, whose evidence greatly interested his hearers, described the 
various leakages. He especially referred to a very serious case designated 
as "Leakage of St. Thomas Aquinas," in which a clerk of the church of 
St. Thomas Aquinas, Paris, was mixed up in espionage, and a serious 
leakage in the Minister of Marine. 

The witness then referred to the spy Gu^nee's denunciations, to the 
effect that officers of the Headquarters Staff were guilty of treachery. 
But, the colonel explained, it was very difficult to accept Guenee's state- 
ment as gospel. The witness regretted Guenee's death, as, he said, the 
court would have been edified by his testimony in regard to the manner 
in which many things w^ere fabricated. 

Cordier described the events prior to the arrest of Dreyfus, and showed 
that only a single real leakage, namely, the plans of the fortresses, had 
occurred at the time of his arrest. The document known as "Cette 
canaille de P — ^— ," he explained, was contemporaneous with this leakage. 


"It has been said," continued the witness, "that I made a mistake on 
this point, and confounded the document with another containing the ini- 
tial alone. I should like very much to see the document, in order to as- 
sure myself that it has not been tampered with. It is not, however, of 
any importance, except to show that General Eoget's evidence concerning 
it is false from beginning to end." [Sensation.] 

Eeverting to the manner in which the suspicions against Dreyfus crys- 
tallized, the colonel described the efforts to pry into the prisoner's life, 
and said the information at first received was very bad and constituted 
strong proof against the prisoner. Later, however, it assumed quite a 
different aspect. It was admitted that before his marriage Dreyfus was 
not "unimpeachable morally, nor was he entitled to wear a wreath of 
orange blossoms." [Laughter.] 

But, Cordier added, after his marriage Dreyfus was quite different. 

The witness also said that while Dreyfus boasted of his conquests, he, 
Cordier, was of the opinion that those who boasted the most accomplished 
the least. [Laughter.] 

Dreyfus, he continued, bragged a great deal, and probably now re- 
pented having done so, and Dreyfus's inquisitiveness, according to wit- 
ness, was probably explained by his knowledge that he would not long 
remain on the Headquarters Staff, and he desired to obtain all the infor- 
mation which might be useful to him in after life. 

"In 1894," declared Colonel Cordier, emphatically, "I had been reas- 
sured by the unanimity of the judges, and I was absolutely convinced of 
the guilt of Dreyfus. Now I am absolutely convinced of his innocence." 
[Great excitement.] 

M. Labori questioned the witness in regard to the letter mentioned in 
M. De la Roche -Vernet's evidence referring to the spy "C. C. C," which 
was dispatched to the War Office at the time of Colonel Picquart's arri- 
val. Cordier explained that it was a letter from an Italian lady, with 
whom the department, at that time, was in correspondence through an 
intermediary at the Foreign Office. 

"I greatly respect Italian ladies in general," said Colonel Cordier, "but 
not when it is a case of espionage, and I advised Colonel Picquart not to 
make too much use of the lady's offices, saying to him: 'There must be, 
jio petticoats.'" 


Major Lauth commented upon Colonel Cordier's testimony, especially 
the statement that there were no Anti-Semites on the Headquarters Staff, 
remarking that there was one exception, and that this was Cordier him- 
self, who was always expressing antipathy to the Jews, especially when 
there was a question of introducing Dreyfus to the department. 

"Yes," exclaimed Cordier, "quite true. I was an Anti-Semite, but 
my opinions never went to the length of bringing false evidence against 
the Jews. [Sensation.] I am an honest man, and I have a conscience." 
[Renewed excitement.] 

Colonel Fleur appeared in the witness box to refute Colonel Cordier's 
testimony. He declared that on August 23, 1898, Colonel Cordier said 
to him : 

" Dreyfus is guilty. But there must be two others. There are three 
of them." 

Colonel Cordier shrugged his shoulders, and admitted that on that 
date, just a week before the arrest of Henry, he said forgery had been 
committed at the Headquarters Staff. But, the colonel added, he told 
the same thing of others the day after the posting up of the speech of M. 
Cavaignac, then Minister of War, was voted by the Chamber of Deputies. 

Archivist Gribelin also advanced and protested against Colonel Cor- 
dier's statement. 

He was followed by General Mercier, who said it was necessary for 
Cordier to say what he knew about the arrangement of the secret dossier 
by Colonel Sandherr. 

General Mercier caused a sensation by indorsing Colonel Cordier's 
statement with reference to the alleged attempt of Mathieu Dreyfus to 
bribe Colonel Sandherr. The general said : 

" When Colonel Sandherr reported the interview and I asked his opin- 
ion of it, Sandherr replied : 

" ' He gave me the impression of being an honest man resolved to sac- 
rifice everything for his brother.'" 

The name of M. de Freycinet, known as "The Little White Mouse," 
was called, and amid suppressed excitement the former Minister of War, 
former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and former Premier took the witness 

Maitre Demange proceeded to question the former Minister. Counsel 


recalled General Mercier's statement that M. de. Freycinet told General 
Jamont that 35,000,000 francs had been raised abroad for the defence of 

In reply, M. de Freycinet expressed the anguish which he felt at the 
sight of the trouble into which his country was plunged, and said his 
whole desire was to see peace and calm restored. In regard to the con- 
versations referred to the witness said : 

" General Jamont made me a visit of courtesy on the occasion of my 
quitting office at the beginning of May. I received many similar visits. 
I do not think that I exaggerate when I say I received a hundred such 
visits. I made no note of the remarks exchanged by my different visi- 

" In the case of General Jamont we, of course, talked about the case 
and the campaign of speeches and press utterances which had been pro- 
ceeding in different parts of the world during the previous two years. In 
regard to the Dreyfus case I was led to say that our agents abroad re- 
ported that efforts had been made, on the initiative of private individuals, 
in behalf of this campaign. A very disinterested campaign in France, I 
am sure; but less so abroad. 

" I reported the estimates I heard had been made by people who pro- 
fessed to be well acquainted with the question of advertising in regard to 
the probable money value of the whole campaign throughout the world 
since its inception. 

" That, Monsieur le President, is a r^sum^, as complete and faithful as 
my recollection permits, of the conversation with General Jamont. What 
struck me most was the identity of our anxiety in regard to the army. 
We mutually expressed uneasiness, for it must not be concealed that the 
present attacks have had a profound echo which might eventually en- 
danger the cohesion of the army. 

"You know well, gentlemen, that there is a higher discipline than 
even the Military Code. As I said in the Chamber, it is that more rig- 
orous discipline which comes from the confid«nce of the soldier in his 
chiefs. How can that confidence be maintained if those chiefs are depicted 
daily in the blackest colors ? Was it not to be feared that at a given mo- 
ment this confidence would disappear, and what would be the result if we 
were engaged in external difficulties? [Sensation.] 


"I adjure those of iny countrymen," continued M. de Freycinct ear- 
nestly, " who participate in these attacks under the impulse of generous 
passion and with the object of serving a noble, elevated idea — I have no 
doubt they are led away — to take heed of the dangers in which they may 
involve the country. As General Jamont said to me: 'It is high time 
to end it.' 

" Let lis cease throwing in one another's faces accusations which discredit 
us in the eyes of our rivals. Gentlemen, let us prepare — and I would that 
my feeble voice could be heard by all — let us prepare to accept your judg- 
ment with respect and silence. May the judgment of this French court, 
toward which the whole world has its eyes turned, open up the era of 
reconciliation which is so necessary. [Immense excitement.] 

" Gentlemen, pardon me for telling you what I wish. It springs from 
a heart which has no longer much to desire here below, except to live and 
see the country great and honored. 

" I have finished. I have given an exact account of the interview 
with the commander-in-chief of our armies in time of war. I have noth- 
ing to add." 

M. de Freycinet had fully maintained his title to the nickname, " The 
Little White Mouse," which was bestowed upon him on account of his 
ability to speak lengthily without conveying much information. 

Eeplying to a member of the court-martial, M. de Freycinet explained 
the part which he played in the Ministry to which he belonged. He said 
he confined himself to giving effect to the Government's decisions when 
the Supreme Court decided in favor of a revision. 

M. Demange wanted M. de Freycinet to repeat in court his statements 
made in the Chamber of Deputies in regard to the small importance at- 
taching to the alleged treason, but M. de Freycinet declined to repeat 
them, saying the court could, however, indicate the sense of his speech. 
In his opinion most of the leakages could only have been of infinitesimal 
importance, though the information relative to covering the troops might 
have been important. The publication of secrets relating to arming and 
explosives was also dangerous. But when the witness made his speech 
in the Chamber of Deputies he wished above aU to avoid increasing pub- 
lic excitement. 

M. Labori — Is M. de Freycinet aware of any fact which led him to 


believe foreign money has played a part in the revision of the trial oi 

M. de Freyoinet — No, no, Monsieur le President. 

M. Labori — What does M. de Freycinet think of the accusations of a 
certain section of the press against MM. Scheurer-Kestner, Tarieux, Bris- 
son, and Pane, and by another section against the Court of Cassation, 
tending to attribute the opinion on the revision expressed by those persons 
to the influences of corruption? 

Colonel Jouaust — I refuse to put the question. 

M. Labori insisted that he should at least be permitted to question M. 
de Freycinet relative to M. Scheurer-Kestner, the former Vice-President 
of the Senate, whose statements about the letters Colonel Picquart wrote 
to him from Tunis have been contradicted by Savignaud, Picquart's former 

To this the president of the court replied that the good faith of M. 
Scheurer-Kestner was not under discussion. Colonel Jouaust added that 
M! Labori wished to import passion into the proceedings. 

Counsel was defending himself against this aspersion, when M. de 
Freycinet intervened and said he did not scruple to say that M. Scheurer- 
Kestner w;as his friend, and that he had the highest opinion of his char- 

M. Labori thanked the witness for this frank statement. 

After leaving the witness-stand M. de Freycinet took a seat beside 
General Billot, with whom he briefly conversed. The former Minister 
then left the court-room, after having been excused from further attend- 

M. Gallichet, editor of the Drapeau, then testified. He expressed his 
personal indignation at the charges of treason against Henry, and repeated 
the gossip of a third party relative to an alleged remark Colonel Cordier 
was overheard to make, namely : 

" We have taken Dreyfus with his hand in the bag. " 

M. Belhomme, a former Inspector of Schools, seventy-eight years of 
age, testified that he examined as an expert the bordereau in the Ester- 
hazy case, and came to the conclusion that it was not the work of Ester- 
hazy. The witness added that he adhered to his opinion even more posi- 
tively now than before. Incidentally, M. Belhomme expressed surprise 


at the fact that the Court of Cassation did not take the result of his exam- 
ination into account. In conclusion M. Belhomme daclared he never be- 
lieved the bordereau was in Esterhazy's writing, and added that until he 
actually saw him make a fresh copy of the document, witness would have 
no remarks to make in regard to the handwriting of Dreyfus, which he 
had not sufficiently examined. 

After M. Demange had asked a question or two, to which M. Bel- 
homme did not reply, M. Demange pointed out the contradictions in M. 
Belhomme's original report and in his statements at this session. 

The court then adjourned. 


Chapter XLIIL 


M. Paul Meyer, member of the Institute and Director of the School 
of Ancient Manuscripts, was the first witness on August 30th. He de- 
posed in favor of Dreyfus. 

After MM. Molinier and Giry, and M. Picot, a member of the Insti- 
tute, all of whom testified in favor of Dreyfus, General Deloye testified 
against the prisoner on the artillery references in the bordereau. 

Then the court, on the application of the Government Commissary, 
Major Carriere, ordered that the opening part of the session of August 
31st be behind closed doors for the purpose of discussing documents relat- 
ing to the artillery. 

The evidence of MM. Meyer, Molinier, and Giry, all of whom are 
handwriting experts of the first mark, was a strong point for Dreyfus. 
They were most emphatic in declaring the bordereau was written by 
Esterhazy, and created a better impression than M. Bertillon by not in- 
troducing the fantastic diagrams which the latter deemed necessary. 

On the other hand, many persons thought General Mercier, fearing 
that the exposure of August 26th would discredit him altogether with the 
judges, had conceived the idea of giving way on certain points, and thus 
to some extent reinstating himself by an affectation of impartiality. 

M. Meyer explained this in his evidence before the Assizes Court. 
He was unable to be so positive in regard to the writer because he had 
only seen a facsimile of the bordereau ; but at the Court of Cassation he 
saw the original bordereau. 

"I convinced myself," said M. Meyer, "by a magnifying glass that the 
bordereau was written in a free hand and without hesitation, whereas it 
is precisely hesitation in the formation of the strokes which reveals the 
use of a method of tracing. I can affirm that it is in the writing and in 


the very hand of Esterhazy. That is perfectly clear to me." [Commo- 

At the conclusion of his testimony the witness gave a demonstration 
of the fallacy of the Bertillon system. 

Professor Auguste Molinier, of the School of Ancient Manuscripts, gave 
similar evidence. He said that each fresh examination of the bordereau 
only served further to convince him that it was the work of Esterhazy. 

Amid deep attention the witness demonstrated how the conclusions of 
the experts who attributed the bordereau to Dreyfus were mutually de- 
structive, and dwelt on the defects of M. Bertillon's arguments, pointing 
out the striking resemblance of the alleged doctored handwriting with 
Esterhazy's writing, who, he added, in everybody's opinion, had relations 
with Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the former German military attach^ at Paris, 
and the dissimilarities between the writing of the bordereau and that of 
the prisoner. 

The members of the court-martial were apparently much interested, 
and asked Professor Molinier a number of questions, to which he replied, 
upholding his conclusion that Esterhazy was the writer of the bordereau. 

General Mercier requested permission to speak, and called attention to 
the fact that in his testimony before the Court of Cassation Professor Mo- 
linier said a change was apparent in Esterhazy's handwriting after 1894, 
and asked that the professor's former evidence be read. . 

M. Labori then jumped up and inquired if General Mercier intervened 
with the object of verifying Professor Molinier's evidence. Counsel added 
that it seemed to him that General Mercier intervened less in the charac- 
ter of a witness than as a representative of the Government Commissary. 
He therefore would be grateful to the general if he would kindly explain 
the bearing of his remark. 

Mercier replied that on this special point he desired to confirm the 
evidence of Professor Molinier, which, he said, corroborated M. Bertillon's 
statement that Esterhazy, the man-of-straw, changed his handwriting in 
order to replace Dreyfus. 

In conclusion General Mercier said : 

" Having emphasized the point in regard to the change in Esterhazy's 
handwriting in 1897, perhaps before, I am satisfied." [Commotion.] 

Professor Giry, also of the School of Ancient Manuscripts, gave sim- 


ilar evidence to that of Professor Molinier. He said the bordereau only 
had a superficial likeness to Dreyfus's handwriting, and asserted that it 
was certainly the work of Esterhazy. 

The witness also said the bordereau was not written with the aid of 

M. Labori asked if the witness had noticed a change in Esterhazy's 
caligraphy, and Professor Giry replied that he had studied the question, 
but did not think there had been any marked change. 

Counsel then asked whether General Mercier had meant to intimate 
chat Esterhazy's handwriting had become more or less like that of Drey- 
fus since 1S94, to which the general replied that he had not wished to 
express an opinion, but he reiterated that M. Bertillon had show^n that 
Esterhazy's handwriting had become more like that of the bordereau. 

M. Picot, a member of the French Institute, said he had had an inter- 
view with a " certain military attache " (Colonel Schneider, the Austrian 
military attach^), and that the conversation turned upon the Dreyfus case. 
The attache expressed surprise at the " incorrect attitude of French officers 
in doubting the word of foreign officers." 

"My impression," added the witness, "was that he was anxious to as- 
sert firmly and unequivocally the absolute innocence of Dreyfus." [Sensa- 

"Regarding the bordereau," continued M. Picot, "the attache said only 
three documents, enumerated, were referred to, the real fact being that 
the others were padding, meant to swell the dossier." 

The witness noticed that the attach^ employed the expression "hy- 
draulic brake," and never "pneumatic brake." 

In regard to Esterhazy, the attach^, M. Picot said, declared that he 
considered him a swindler. The attach^ also asserted that Esterhazy had 
relations with Colonel Schwartzkoppen, who dismissed him because Ester- 
hazy only brought information devoid of interest. 

It was then, continued M. Picot, that Esterhazy tried to enter the 
War Office, and almost succeeded, and it was then that he wrote to 
Colonel Schwartzkoppen the letter since known as the bordereau. In re- 
ply to the writer of the bordereau, added M. Picot, Colonel Schwartzkop- 
pen wrote the telegram card known as the j^etit Ueu. But on reflection 
he crumpled it up and threw it into the fireplace. 


At this juncture General Eoget asked leave to speak and, st-ationing 
himself beside the witness, said he must strongly protest against M. 
Picot's evidence regarding the military attach(5's surprise that French 
officers did not believe their foreign colleagues, 

"What does the witness think," continued General Roget, "of the for- 
eign office, who, having caused the publication in the Figaro of an em- 
phatic denial of a statement of General ]\Iercier, was afterward obliged to 
acknowledge the authorship of a document? " 

M. Picot retorted that he had only repeated statements made to him, 
and had abstained from comments on them. He had, therefore, nothing 
to say in reply to General Eoget's questions, 

M, Demange, intervening, asked General Roget if he did not think 
the Foreign Office's mistake was excusable, since the word "report" had 
been applied to a document not possessing the character of the report ? 

"It is not for me to accuse or excuse," replied the general, "I con- 
fine myself to pointing out to the court that the conversation repeated 
occurred in May, that is to say, at the time the result of the investigation 
of the Court of Cassation was already known. For my part, I only inter- 
vened because French officers have been arraigned, and when being 
accused, French officers have the right to reply." [Excitement.] 

General Deloye, Director of Artillery at the War Office, was called to 
the witness bar. He repeated his explanations given before the Court of 
Cassation as to the various peculiarities of the artillery, particularly with 
reference to the brake of the " 120 short " gun. 

The w^itness said he considered that in 1894 it would have been im- 
possible for any officer serving with his regiment to communicate any- 
thing in regard to the brake of this gun. He added that, although the 
gun was in use at Rennes, the officers forming the court-martial, among 
whom was an officer commanding a " 120 short " gun, had only the vaguest 
ideas about this gun, while in 1894 the details of the "pneumatic brake" 
could only have been known to very few officers. 

When Dreyfus was asked if he had anything to say, he replied : 

" I do not intend to discuss the terms of the bordereau, nor advance 
theories about it. It must be known what is in the notes and what is 
their nature and their value before theories can be suggested. 

"Mention has been made of the '120 short' gun. I state briefly for 


the second time all that I knew in 1889-90 at Bourges of this gun. I 
knew the principle of the ' pneumatic brake.' 

" General Mercier's deposition recalled the fact that he was Inspector- 
General at Bourges in 1890. He must remember the lecture given in the 
presence of all the officers, both of the Gunnery School and the foundry, 
and all the departments of Bourges, and the officers of the garrison artil- 
lery. He must recollect the final lecture given on the subject of the 
'pneumatic brake,' of which he made the customary rough sketch. This 
is to be found in the St. Cyr lectures. All my knowledge ®f the 'pneu- 
matic brake ' was derived from the lectures. As regards the brake itself, I 
have seen it twice, once in the courtyard of the Gunnery School at Bourges 
and once in the School of War. I have not seen it in action. I have 
not seen the '120 short' gun fired. I have never been present at the 
firing trials. 

"Mention has also been made of the shrapnel shell of 1891. The 
knowledge of General Deloye on this point is much more extensive than 
mine, and everything he has said is quite correct. In 1894 I studied the 
shell, and, in a necessarily incomplete study, reached the conclusion that 
the shell of the 1891 pattern was a shell in which the bullets were kept 
in place by a smoke-generating substance intended to produce dense clouds 
of smoke on bursting, in order to facilitate range finding. These are the 
conclusions I reached in 1894, and I chronicled them in a report made at 
the time." 


Chapter XLIV. 

The session of the court-martial of August 31st opened behind closed 
doors. Majors Hartmann and Ducros and General Deloye, all of the artil- 
lery, were present. The court discussed the secret documents relating to 
the artillery subjects of the bordereau. In addition to the usual cordons 
of troops in the streets leading to the Lycee, an extra guard was posted, 
so as completely to isolate the hall in which the judges met in secret 

The public were admitted to the court at 9 :30 a.m. The first wit- 
ness called after the public session was opened was Captain Lebrun-Ee- 
nault of the Eepublican Guard, who reiterated his testimony given before 
the court of Cassation, repeating the terms of the alleged confession of 
Dreyfus : 

" I am innocent. In three years they will recognize my innocence. 
The Minister knows it. If I delivered documents to Germany, it was to 
have more important onee in return." 

The witness's explanation that he did not refer to the confession of 
Dreyfus during his interview with President Casimir-Perier, because he 
overheard a conversation during the course of which he was called 
"traitor," "canaille," and "cur," came as a surprise, for he did not men- 
tion this in his evidence before the Court of Cassation, as Maitre Labori, 
leading counsel for the defence, pointed out. 

M. Labori also laid stress on the fact that Captain Lebrun-Pienault 
should have kept his notebook, in Y>^hich, he asserts, he made a note of his 
conversation with Dreyfus, for four years, and have destroyed it on the 
very day the matter was brought up in debate in the Chamber of Depu- 
ties. The captain's reply that he looked upon the copy made by M. 
Cavaignac, then Minister of War, as being sufficient, was considered rather 


Captain Lebrun-Eenault is a well-built man of medium height, broad- 
shouldered, and wears a well-trimmed mustache. But he has queer eyes. 
He spoke in a loud, clear voice. 

Dreyfus, replying to the witness, began by calmly declaring that Cap- 
tain Lebrun-Eenault's statement that a certain Captain d'Attel was pres- 
ent during his conversation with Captain Lebrun-Eenault was inaccurate. 

The witness, however, maintained that Captain d'Attel was present, 
whereupon Dreyfus said that if he was present he, the prisoner, did not 
speak to him, 

Dreyfus then raised his voice excitedly, and, accompanying his words 
with short, emphatic gestures of the right hand, which was quivering with 
his emotion, he declared that Captain Lebrun-Eenault should not have re- 
peated to his chiefs his utterances, which began with a protestation of 
innocence, without asking him to explain his words. 

"Those are manoeuvres," cried the prisoner, "which must fill all honest 
men with indignation." 

This declaration of the prisoner made a deep impression on the audience. 

Dreyfus spoke the last words through his teeth and was evidently la- 
boring under the greatest excitement and indignation. The audience 
broke into " Bravos ! " which the gendarmes immediately suppressed. 

Captain Authoine followed and repeated what Captain d'Attel had said 
confirming the confession. Dreyfus replied that he had not spoken to 
Captain d'Attel. 

On being recalled, Captain Lebrun-Eenault said this was true, but he 
added that Captain d'Attel was present and could have overheard the con- 

M. Labori here pointed out that Captain d'Attel had not spoken to his 
chiefs on this subject, and General Mercier, who, like all the military 
witnesses, followed the proceedings with the keenest attention, rose and 
admitted that this was correct. 

Colonel Jouaust told Dreyfus that he had not explained why he men- 
tioned the term of three years, to which Dreyfus replied : 

" I did not give three years as tlie term. I only said I hoped that in 
the course of two or three years my innocence would be recognized. And 
I wish to state, Colonel, that, as my letters to General Gonse show, my 
words dicl uot have the seuse evil minds have sought to give them." 


M. Labori theu had General Gonse called to the bar, and asked him if 
he had not used the alleged confession of Dreyfus in opposing Colonel Pic- 
quart's arguments in favor of a revision. 

General Gonse replied that he had not, whereupon M. Labori asked 
that the letters exchanged between General Gonse and Colonel Picquart 
should be read. 

The clerk of the court began to read a letter which began " My dear 
Picquart," when General Gonse interrupted him and asked that Colonel 
Picquart's previous letter be read first, but, as the letter was not available 
for the moment, the reading of all the letters was adjourned until Septem- 
ber 1st. 

Major Forzinetti, who was governor of the Cherche-Midi Prison during 
the time Dreyfus was imprisoned there, and who testified in behalf of 
Dreyfus, declaring he had never heard of the confession Dreyfus is said to 
have made, was the next witness called. He repeated his testimony before 
the Court of Cassation, adding that he frequently met Captain Lebrun- 
Eenault and Captain d'Attel, and that neither of them ever alluded to the 
alleged confession. 

The witness declared that he once taxed Captain Lebrun-Kenault be- 
fore General Gonse and other witnesses, with saying he had spoken to the 
witness (Major Forzinetti) of the confession, and Captain Lebrun-Renault 
did not reply. "Whereupon," Major Forzinetti said, "I seized his arm 
and cried : ' If the words repeated as yours are true, you are an infamous 
liar.' " 

Major Forzinetti theu declared that on visiting General de Boisdefi're 
to express fears about the health of the prisoner, the general asked him 
his opinion of Dreyfus, and the major replied: 

"My General, had you not put that question to me I would have 
kept my counsel. But since you ask my opinion, I declare I believe he 
is innocent." 

The witness then recounted Colonel Du Paty de Clam's theatrical de- 
vices to surprise Dreyfus, to which Forzinetti declined to be a party, and 
the major also said that on one occasion, when Dreyfus was in a crisis of 
despair, he, the witness, remained with the prisoner, consoling him, until 
three o'clock in the morning. 

Colonel Jouaust ^sked Major Forzinetti if Dreyfus ever ba^ i46as of 


suicide, and the witness replied that Dreyfus had asked for a weapon, and 
that also, after his condemnation was read to him, he was with difficulty 
prevented from dashing his head against the wall. 

After the last visit of Du Paty de Clam to Dreyfus, continued Major 
Forzinetti, the prisoner wrote to the ]\Iinister of War a letter which con- 
cluded with the words : 

" When I am gone, let them seek the culprit. " 

At the conclusion of Major Forzinetti's evidence, Dreyfus, on Colonel 
Jouaust's invitation, and after reference to the last interview with Du 
Paty de Clam, said, looking with gratitude at the major: 

"There is a matter which Major Forzinetti has just recalled which has 
greatly moved me, and which I wish to recall, for I wish to say to whom 
I owe the fact that I have done my duty — to whom I owe having done it 
for five years after my condemnation. I had determined to kill myself. I 
had made up my mind not to undergo the frightful torture of a soldier from 
whom they wished to tear the insignia of honor. 

" Well, then, let me say this : That if I went to that torture, I can say 
here that it was thanks to Madame Dreyfus, who showed me my duty, and 
who told me that if I was innocent I ought to go to it, for the sake of her 
and our children. If I am here, it is to her I owe it. Colonel." 

Here Major Forzinetti said : 

" It is quite true. In his last interview with his wife Dreyfus said : 
' For her and for my children T will undergo this torture of to-morrow,' " 

This declaration of Dreyfus that his life was due to his wife deeply 
stirred all his hearers. He spoke in a broken voice, with emphatic ges- 
tures, swaying to and fro with emotion, and when he had finished he sat 
down abruptly, evidently to conceal his discomposed features from the 
gaze of the spectators in court, who when he was seated were only able 
to see his back. Tears were glistening in his eyes, and he was clearly sup- 
pressing an outburst of sobbing. 

General de Boisdeffre denied that Major Forzinetti had expressed to 
him his conviction that Dreyfus was innocent. But the major main- 
tained his assertion. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Guerin, whom General Saussier ordered to attend 
the degradation of Captain Dreyfus and report upon it, said : 

"At about 7:45 I saw the prison van arrive. Dreyfus alighted and 


was taken to the office, where he was guarded by Captain Lebrun-Renault, 
whose name I did not know at that time. At 8:55 the adjutant of the 
garrison relieved Captain Lebrun-Eenault, with four artillerymen and a 
corporal, composing the guard which was to conduct the prisoner to the 
place of degradation. At that moment I was at the door of the building- 
"Captain Lebrun-Eenault, when relieved from duty, saw me and im- 
mediately began to relate what Dreyfus had said. The three statements 
which struck him, because of their importance, remained so graven in my 
memory that I could never forget them, — namely, first, the prisoner's pride 
in the facings he had lost; second, his confession that he had delivered 
documents to a foreign power; third, that in three years justice would be 
done him. A group of officers were standing near, and as Captain Lebrun- 
Eenault's conversation was not confidential, and the statement he had made 
me was of great importance and interest to us, I begged him to repeat to 
the officers what he had just told me. 

" I must add that Captain d' Attel had been ordered to superintend 
matters, and his special duty required him to report everything which oc- 
curred in the office of the adjutant while Dreyfus was there, and until 
Dreyfus was conducted to the place of degradation. 

"Throughout the ceremony the prisoner walked automatically. After- 
ward, when he was conducted to the prison van, I stood, in company with 
some officers, in the passage Dreyfus traversed, and Dreyfus, addressing 
the officers, repeated that in three years justice would be done him. He 
then entered the van and disappeared. 

"After the ceremony I verbally reported to General Saussier the inci- 
dent of the morning, particularly the statements made by Dreyfus to Cap- 
tain Lebrun-Eenault. 

"During the day Captain d'Atf-el also told M. Wunenberger, archivist 
of the Paris Headquarters, that Dreyfus had confessed." 

M. Demange — How do you reconcile his protests of innocence with 
the alleged confession? 

Colonel Gu^rin — That is not my business. 

M. Demange — You reported the confession to Gemeral Saussier? 

Colonel Gu^rin — Certainly. 

]\I. Demange — Was it suggested that steps bei taken to verify the 
alleged confession? 


Colonel GuMn — I do not recollect. 

M. Demange — So there was no attempt to interrogate Dreyfus in re- 
gard to the alleged confession? 

Colonel Gu^rin — The case had passed out of the hands of the military 
authorities, the prisoner having been handed over to the civil authorities. 

Dreyfus, when the usual question was put to him, said he had nothing 
to add to the reply he had made to Captain Lebrun-Eenault. 

One of the judges asked the witness whether M. Weil, when attached 
to the Army Headquarters, had relations with Esterhazy, to which Colonel 
Guerin replied that he believed M. Weil had known Esterhazy for a long 

The Judge — Do you think Esterhazy knew the prisoner? 

Colonel Guerin — I do not know. 

Dreyfus here remarked that he never knew Esterhazy. 

Major de Mitry of the hussars testified to Captain Anthoine telling 
him of the alleged confession of Dreyfus. 

Army Controller Peyrolles also testified that he heard of the confession 
from Colonel Guerin. The latter he added, introduced the witness to Cap- 
tain Lebrun-Eenault on their way to the Zola trial. 

Continuing, ]\Iajor de Mitry said : 

" I said to Captain Lebrun-Eenault, point blank : ' How is it the con- 
fession of Dreyfus was not reported to our President and Premier when 
you were summoned to the Elysee? ' 

" Captain Lebrun-Eenault replied : ' I did not report it, through a 
kind of apprehension, because when in the anteroom I heard some one say 
" Who is this gendarme who is betraying professional secrets and feeding 
the press? He might smart for such indiscretions." ' 

" I replied : ' Eenault, you have made a mistake. In your place I 
would have told the President.' " 

When called upon to reply, Dreyfus declared he had never said his 
trial would be revised in three years. 

"I do not understand these words," said the prisoner. "I should be 
very grateful to you. Colonel, if, in the interest of truth, you would make 
public the letter which I wrote to the Chief of the Headquarters Staff. It 
would then be seen ja what terms I asked that an investigation should be. 



Colonel Jouaust — But why in three years? 

Dreyfus — I have already told the court that I told Colonel Du Paty 
de Clam that the Government had the means of investigation, but that it 
required time to use tiiem. I said, therefore, that before two or three years 
my innocence would be acknowledged. But I emphatically assert there 
was no sinister motive in my mind such as has been attached to these 
words. [Excitement.] 

Dreyfus evidently referred to the General Staff's suggestion that when 
he used the expression "three years " he knew that Esterhazy would theu 
appear as a man-of-straw and try to take Dreyfus's place. 


Chapter XLV. 


Immediately after the opening of the session of the court-martial on 
September 1st, Colonel Jouaust aroused the interest of the audience by 
remarking : 

" Maitre Labori the other day asked that information be obtained re- 
garding the character of a certain witness. I would not have acceded if 
the witness had not expressed a similar desire. Information which has 
now reached me will be read. " 

The clerk of the court accordingly read a report regarding M. Dubreuil, 
the Parisian friend of M, de Beaurepaire, who testified on August 23d 
that Dreyfus met a German attache at the house of a mutual friend named 
Bodson, and whose cross-examination reflected severely on his reputation. 
The report was to the effect that M. Dubreuil never was a horse-dealer, 
as claimed by M. Labori, and that the character of the witness was most 
respectable, he being held in general esteem. 

This was a very satisfactory session for Dreyfus. The Beaurepaire 
witness, Germain, who was to prove that Dreyfus attended the Alsatian 
manoeuvres, found his statements denied by a reputable witness, while 
Germain himself, it was proved, had undergone two convictions for swin- 

In his deposition Germain declared he saddled a horse for Dreyfus to 
follow the manoeuvres, and he said that his employer, Kuhlman, accom- 
panied Dreyfus riding, and adding that the major told the witness the 
name of his companion. 

Colonel Jouaust questioned Dreyfus on this point, and in reply to the 
usual question Dreyfus admitted that about 1886 or 1887 he spent a fur- 
lough at Mulhouse, adding : 

" Every year, both while studying and attending the gunnery and artil- 
lery training schools, I passed one or twp moiaths at Mulhouse. But I 

More testimony pop. dreyfus ^sS 

Can positively affirm that I never was present either in an official or semi- 
official capacity at the German manoeuvres. I was never invited to attend 
the German manoeuvres, and I never dined or lunched with any German 
officer. On each visit I called on the general commanding at Mulhouse 
with my regular passport, in accordance with my duty. 

" I would like to point out, in regard to the manoeuvring ground to 
which reference is made, that the Mulhouse ground is not ground over 
which manoeuvres could be carried out. It is merely a small drill ground, 
nothing more than a clearing in the Hartz Forest on the road from Mul- 
house to Basle. It is true that in the course of my excursions in 1886 
I might have seen regiments drilling. But I emphatically declare that 
while out riding in 1886 or 1887 I never dined or lunched with German 
officers, was never even invited to do so by foreign officers, and never 
spoke to foreign officers." 

Eeplying to Colonel Jouaust, Dreyfus said that while he was at Mul- 
house he rode his brother's horse, and did not remember anything about 
the horse mentioned by Germain. 

During the cross-examination M. Labori asked the groom, Germain, if 
he was acquainted with M. de Beaurepaire, and the witness replied that 
he was not acquainted with him, but he added that M. de Beaurepaire 
knew the facts to which he testified, through the witness's friends, and he 
also admitted having written to M. de Beaurepaire giving information 
which the latter had published in the Eclio de Paris. 

The next two witnesses, however, gave strong testimony in favor of 
Dreyfus, and sadly knocked Germain's testimony about. 

Kuhlman, the livery-stable keeper, who employed Germain at this 
time, in his testimony said that he never rode with Dreyfus as stated by 
Germain ; that he never went to the manoeuvres in company with Dreyfus, 
and absolutely denied all Germain's statements. Germain, the liveryman 
added, was in his employ, and possibly the groom accompanied Dreyfus. 
But the witness had no knowledge of it. 

In conclusion, Kuhlman emphatically reiterated that he never rode 
with Dreyfus. He said he was well acquainted with the whole Dreyfus 

Major d'Infreville testified that he had known Germain since 1894. 
He added that Germain informed him that Dreyfus attended the German 


manoeuvres. Witness had never said that an officer Germain saw in the 
Bois de Boulogne was Dreyfus, for the simple reason that he did not know 

Germain, on being recalled, asserted that he certainly thought Major 
d'Infreville told him the officer referred to was Dreyfus. 

The next witness, Captain Le Monuier of the Headquarters Staff, who 
was a probationer at the same time as Dreyfus, deposed that while they 
were at the School of War in 1894, Dreyfus, in the course of a conversa- 
tion referring to the covering of troops in the Vosges region and the move- 
ments necessary for the invasion of Alsace, said that he was well acquaint- 
ed with a certain position to which the Germans attached great importance 
as a means of checking a French advance. This position, witness con- 
tinued, was westward of Mulhouse, and Dreyfus said he reached this 
opinion after following the German manoeuvres on horseback. 

The prisoner at this point quietly pointed out that the position men- 
tioned by Captain Le Monnier was situated in an entirely different locality 
from where he, the prisoner, is supposed to have followed the manoeuvres. 
Dreyfus added : 

" Captain Le Monnier must have confused it with a position which I 
described from knowledge acquired when traversing the whole district on 
horseback while a youth." 

The prisoner reiterated that he never attended the manoeuvres in ques- 

The next witness, M. Villon, another of the friends of M. de Beaure- 
paire, declared that when in Berlin during the year 1894 he overheard a 
conversation of some German officers who were lunching in an adjoining 
room of a cafe in that city. One of the officers, the witness added, ex- 
pressed indignation that a French officer was guilty of treason, and his 
companion replied : 

" It is a good thing for us. You know we are getting the plans of 
mobilization from Dreyfus." [Murmurs of assent and dissent.] 

At the request of M. Demange, M. Villon detailed the alleged con- 
versation, and said he had not mentioned the conversation in 1894, because 
Dreyfus has been arrested, and, knowing him to be guilty, the witness 
foresaw he would be convicted. 

The caf^ however, in which the above conversation is reported to 


have occurred has since disappeared, and, as there are no means of veri- 
fying Villon's testimony, it certainly should not have had much effect on 
th3 judges. 

Two or three witnesses, in support of Dreyfus on artillery questions, 
were next heard, and special Commissary Fischer of the Eastern Military 
Railway System testilied that he was charged to investigate the leakage of 
documents at the gunnery school at Bourges, and found nothing to in- 
crinunate Dreyfus. 

Fischer asserted that he was not long in finding out that a former 
artilleryman named Thomas had communicated to a foreign power docu- 
ments affecting the national defence. Thomas, he added, was sentenced 
to death for attempted murder in 1886, but the sentence was commuted 
to penal servitude for life. The witness went to Avignon and secured the 
convict's confession that he communicated sketches of " shell 80 " of the 
horse artillery and of the " 120 siege-gun," for which he had received one 
thousand francs. 

Replying to Colonel Jouaust, the witness declared that, as Thomas was 
arrested in 1886, he could not have been a spy at a later date. 

Fischer was followed by Lieutenant Bernheim, who testified that, while 
in garrison at Rouen, he furnished Esterhazy with information and docu- 
ments regarding the artillery, in which Esterhazy was much interested. 
The witness was never able to recover the documents. He supposed at 
the time that Esterhazy was anxious to increase his military knowledge, 

Replying to M. Demange, Lieutenant Bernheim said he had not testi- 
fied at the Esterhazy trial, because his testimony was then considered to 
be of no great value. 

Lieutenant Brugere, of the Artillery Reserve, the next witness called, 
said it was perfectly easy for any officer to inspect closely the " 120-short " 
gun. Moreover, he added, detailed explanations and information regard- 
ing the brake were given to the officers present when the gun was fired. 
On two occasions, witness also said, when the gun was fired he noticed the 
presence of a group of non-artillery officers. Therefore, the lieutenant 
pointed out, it was plain that access to the gun was quite easy. 

In May, 1894, Lieutenant Brugere continued, the new Firing Manual 
was distributed. A copy was given to each battery, and, as the captain's 
Lctiires were not fully understood, other copies of the Firing Manual were 


printed, and all officers and non-commissioned officers so desiring could 
obtain as many as they liked. In some regiments even the ordinary gun- 
ners secured copies, and among those favored regiments, Lieutenant Brugere 
pointed out, was the Sixth Artillery, stationed at liennes. [Excitement.] 

The v^^itness said he gave his copy of the Firing Manual to an infantry 
officer on May 17, 1894, The Societe de Tir it Canon, of Paris, also re- 
printed the manual and distributed it among its members. 

Captain Le Rond here interposed, saying that no batteries of the 
" 120-short " gun were at the Chalons camp in 1894, and Lieutenant Bru- 
gere retorted that he only referred to what he saw in the month of May. 
A lively discussion ensued. General Eoget and General Deloye denying 
Lieutenant Brugere's statements. 

General Eoget asked Lieutenant Brugere if he was not the officer who 
had written M. Cavaignac, then Minister of War, a violent letter tendering 
his resignation and declaring it was a dishonor to serve in the French 

This declaration caused a scene, for Lieutenant Brugere, turning to 
General Roget, cried : 

" I protest against General Roget's words. I affirm that I never said 
any such thing." 

General Roget then backed down, saying : 

" Well, that was the general sense of the letter. " 

A roar of disgust came from the audience at this apparemt underhand- 
edness upon the part of the general, and Lieutenant Brugere again em- 
phatially declared General Roget was wrong. 

General Deloye, to whom General Roget appealed, said he had been 
consulted by the Minister of War as to what ought to be done in connec- 
tion with the letter, and witness read the report which he made on the 
subject to the President of the Republic, who, he added, immediately 
signed an order relegating Lieutenant Brugere to the Territorial Army. 

After this Lieutenant Brugere again arose, and emphatically main- 
tained that he made no statement in the sense indicated by General Roget, 
but had only alluded to some personalities, and had not mentioned the 
French army. It would have been absurd to do so, he continued, since 
the French army consists of all citizens over twenty years of age. 

Maitre Labori and Colonel Jouaust agreed that the letter should be 


obtained from the Ministry of War aaci read in court. Lieutenant Bru- 
gere expressed satisfaction at this step, while General Eoget returned to 
his seat with less buoyancy than he left it. 

The next witness, Captain Carvalho, a handsome young artillery officer, 
proved an excellent reinforcement for Dreyfus. He gave his evidence 
clearly and boldly, and emphatically declared that there were no special 
precautions to keep the mechanism of the " 120-short " gun secret. He 
said the gun was frequently operated in the presence of non-artillery offi- 
cers, who were told everything that they desired to know, including a de- 
scription of the hydro-pneumatic brake. Moreover, he added that in 
April, 1894, the artillery officers had a description of the hydro-pneumatic 
brake given them. 

Eegarding the 1895 Firing Manual, witness said copies were obtaina- 
ble in 1894 in all the regiments of the army, and asserted that he had 
purchased a copy. 

"Here," said Captain Carvalho, "is an actual copy of the manual, 
which I hand over to the court-martial." 

M. Labori then had an animated discussion with Colonel Jouaust, who 
at first refused the counsel's request to read a letter which the latter had 
received on the evening of August 31st. After receiving a reluctant per- 
mission from the court, Labori read the letter, which proved to be from a 
spy named Corniugue, stating that he had copied the Firing Manual in 
the room of Major Panizzardi, the Italian military attach^ at Paris, in 
the presence of Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the German military attach^ at 
Paris (referred to in the letter as A and B). Labori then said he was not 
certain whether this was the 1894 or 1895 manual, and begged the Presi- 
dent to question Colonel Picquart on the subject, 

Picquart said, in response, that he believed it was the 1895 manual, 
and that the copy was made in 1896 in Major Panizzardi's room in the 
presence of Major Panizzardi and another person. Colonel Picquart added 
that Major Lauth ought to know something about a certain mark on the 
manual. All the manuals at the Versailles garrison were ordered returned 
to headquarters in order to see which one was missing. 

General Deloye admitted that he was not sure whether it was the 

1894 or 1895 manual, and corroborated Colonel Picquart's statements. 

Major Lauth expressed surprise at the fact that Colonel Picquart's rec- 


ollections •were so vague, and added that Picquart had relations with the 
spy, Corningue, who, he said, was a doubtful character. 

Here ]\L Labori asked to what spy Major Lauth was able to give a 
good character, to which the major replied: 

"Why, none." [Laughter.] 

M. Labori then said that Major Lauth insinuated that Corningue was 
trying to levy blackmail. Was that his idea? 

Colonel Jouaust refused to allow the question. 

M. Labori then asked to be allowed to question Major Lauth further, 
but Colonel Jouaust refused. Counsel insisted, but Colonel Jouaust waved 
him down, whereupon M. Labori cried : 

"You suppress all awkward questions." [Sensation.] 

The Government Commissary, Major Carriere, said : 

" I desire to point out that the defence is always asking to speak, while 
I am always refused permission to do so when I ask." 

Colonel Jouaust, out of patience, retorted : 

" I have heard enough. Be quiet. The incident is closed." 

This cavalier treatment of the Government Commissary, who, however, 
made himself ridiculous whenever he opened his mouth, caused general 

Addressing Colonel Picquart, M. Labori asked : 

" When did you know that the Firing Manual was being copied ? " 

Colonel Picquart — During the summer of 1896. 

M. Labori having remarked that this was all he desired to ask at pres- 
ent, General Hippolyte Sebert, retired, of the marine artillery, deposed. 
He preceded his testimony by saying he did not think he ought to with- 
hold the evidence he was able to give, as he felt it would contribute to the 
reparation of a judicial error. 

The general then criticised the bordereau from a professional stand- 
point, pointing out that the writer must have been a low-classed man, ne- 
gotiating directly w^th a correspondent on whose doles he was dependent. 
He said he was probably an officer, but certainly not an artillery officer, 
adding that this was proved by the employment of expressions an artillery- 
man could not have used. 

General Sebert entered into long explanations of his statements, perti- 
nently pointing out that an artillery officer would have known the inter- 


esting parts of the Firing Manual, and would not have written in the bor- 
dereau, " Take what interests you. " The witness gave a number of instances 
showing the dense ignorance displayed in gunnery technicalities by the 
writer of the bordereau, and amid profound silence General Sebcrt de- 
clared that his study of the case had led him to the conviction that the 
bordereau could not have been written by an artillery officer or by an offi- 
cer belonging to a special arm of the service who had passed through the 
Polytechnic School. [Excitement.] 

General Sebert referred to the satisfaction he felt at knowing that the 
experts of the highest standing in handwriting had confirmed his opinion, 
and he dismissed M. Bertillon's assertions, saying that on examination 
he, the witness, had easily found proof of the worthlessness of that demon- 

"It is painful for me," added General Sebert, "to express so severe 
an opinion on the man whose name is connected with the application of 
the anthropometric method, which has been of great service to our coun- 
try. But French science cannot give its authority to lucubrations so pre- 
tentious as those M. Bertillon brought here. I reassert most emphatically 
that the bordereau was not written by an artillery officer or by an officer 
who passed through the Polytechnic School. I have been sustained in 
giving my evidence by my firm belief in the entire innocence of Dreyfus, 
and I am glad I have had strength enough to bring here the stone which 
I have to lay on the edifice of reparation, and conscientiously, while hold- 
ing aloof from outside passions. This edifice is a work of appeasement and 
peace, which will restore the country to an era of concord and imion." 
[Prolonged excitement.] 

General Sebert also expressed his opinion of Valerio's evidence in sup- 
port of M. Bertillon's system, saying that, in spite of the latter's talent, 
he had not succeeded in converting a false theory into a true one. 

As soon as General Sebert had finished his testimony, M. Bertillon 
bounced up, and asked to be allowed to speak; but Colonel Jouaust 
quickly turned to the usher and said, "Bring in the next witness," where- 
upon M. Bertillon, extremely annoyed, returned to his seat. 

Major Ducros then deposed that he commanded a field battery; that 
he knew Dreyfus and offered him certain information. But, he pointed 
out, Dreyfus never asked him a question, although he knew he (the wit- 


ness) possessed much interesting information, especially particulars about 
the hydro-pneumatic brake. 

General Mercier here intervened, and said that, at the time Major 
Ducros was speaking of, the Ducros field-piece had been rejected in favor 
of the Deport cannon, and, he said, Dreyfus therefore could have no object 
in procuring particulars of the Ducros gun. 

Major Hartmann of the artillery was the next witness for the defence. 
He asked permission to refer to certain of the documents which were pro- 
duced during the secret session of the court on August 31st, upon which, 
he said, he had reached important conclusions. But General Deloye ob- 
jected, as it was contrary to the instructions of the Minister of War. 

The major then asked the court to sit briefly in camera, and Colonel 
Jouaust promised to render a decision later. 

More support for Dreyfus was forthcoming, however, in this deposi- 
tion of Major Hartmann, since he expressed the opinion that the author 
of the bordereau did not know what he was writing about, as he spoke of 
the " 120-short " gun when he meant the " 120-long " gun. 

The major led the court through a maze of technical details about 
artillery, until Colonel Jouaust asked him to refrain from technicalities as 
far as possible, evidently fearing that Hartmann might reveal secrets of 
the service. His evidence was directed entirely to show that Dreyfus was 
not the author of the bordereau, and that the artillery information men- 
tioned in it was accessible to many officers of all arms in the spring of 

Proceeding, Major Hartmann testified on highly technical subjects, his 
evidence being the same as given before the Court of Cassation. He 
spoke in loud, energetic tones, and occupied the whole of the remainder of 
the session. The major's testimony was not concluded when the court 

So far as the depositions were concerned, Dreyfus certainly had every 
reason to be pleased with this day's proceedings. 


Chapter XLVL 


Theke was a large attendance of generals at the Lycee at the opening 
of the session of September 2d. 

The interest centred in the testimony of Major Hartmann, of the 
artillery, which was interrupted by the adjournment of the court on Sep- 
tember 1st, and was resumed at this session. The major, who had done 
great service for the defence, resumed his important deposition regarding 
artillery matters, and the bringing out of points and phraseology in the 
bordereau indicating that the writer could not be Dreyfus. 

The witness wished to enter into the question of the Robin shell. But, 
on General Deloye's objecting to a statement on the subject in open court. 
Major Hartmann asked to be allowed to give it behind closed doors, say- 
ing it would only take him a few minutes to call attention to the point he 
had in mind. 

The president of the court decided to hear this part of the witness's 
testimony in camera at the end of the proceedings, or at the beginning of 
the session of September 4th. 

In response to questions from Maitre Labori, leading counsel for the 
defence, and M. Demange, Major Hartmann said any officer attending the 
Chalons camp would have obtained sufficient information to write notes' on 
the covering of troops and Madagascar matters. 

M. Labori then recalled General Mercier's attack on Captain Freystaet- 
ter, on the latter's declaration that the secret dossier communicated to the 
court of 1894 contained a document concerning a shell, for which General 
Mercier called the captain a liar. Major Hartmann affirmed that it was 
quite possible that particulars about a cei'tain shell should have leaked out 
in 1894. 

An interesting confrontation between General Deloye and Major Hart- 
manu followed, the general declaring that he did not believe the major was 


keeping strictly to the truth. Deloye then proceeded to point to what he 
said were inaccuracies in Major Hartmann's testimony. He insisted that 
Dreyfus, in the course of conversations with artillery officers, could have 
secured information on the subjects mentioned in the bordereau, to which 
the major retorted that if any artillery officer had been questioned by Drey- 
fus he would already have come forward to say so as a matter of strict 

General Deloye, questioned by M. Labori and M. Demange, said the 
inventor of the Robin shell told him Dreyfus never asked him for particu- 
lars about his shell, except on a minor point. The general added he came 
as a technical witness to show Dreyfus could be guilty, adding that it was 
not his business to say whether he believed him innocent or guilty. He 
could only say that Dreyfus's contention that it was impossible for him to 
know certain matters referred to in the bordereau was untrue. 

M. Labori asked General Deloye if he knew whether the documents 
which could have been betrayed by the traitor, especially by the writer of 
the bordereau, were important, whereupon the general turned to counsel 
and excitedly cried : 

"Don't ask me. Don't ask me ! " 

These exclamations created a sensation in court, which was doubled 
when General Deloye added that there was sufficient in the bordereau to 
establish that the traitor knew the importance of the documents he was 
giving up. The witness added : 

"When I read the bordereau I was dismayed." 

Major Hartmann, in reply to General Deloye, reiterated that the author 
of the bordereau was ignorant of artillery matters. 

"For," the major pointed out, "if he meant the '120 ' hydraulic brake, 
he gave particvilars of what was long known, while if he meant the '120 
short' he employed a wrong expression." 

General Mercier reappeared in the witness box in an attempt to refute 
Major Hartmann's argument. He accounted for the use of the expression 
" hydraulic brake " in the bordereau by the fact that the Germans used the 
expression to designate similar brakes. Therefore, he added, it was natu- 
ral that the correspondent of the Germans should employ the term. 

General Deloye then said : 

" I beg the court to allow me to say that in an army liable to find itself 


conf routed ])}' the enemy there ir, need of cohesion. Consequently, all the 
officers of France must march hand in hand, as brethren. I do not think 
it is good for it to be said that officers who have risen from the ranks 
should stop short at a certain point, and that individual merit should not 
count, and that there is a. bar which cannot be passed. No ! no ! that is not 
satisfactory any more than it is true. Captain Valerio is an example. Tie 
has made himself, and a large number of others similarly able have filled 
the positions to which they have risen. Coming here as the representa- 
tive of the Minister of War, I beg the court to allow me to say to one of 
our comrades who has risen from the ranks that these opinions are not 
ours. I think it was necessary to say so." 

After a brief discussion betv/een General Mercier, General Deloye, and 
Major Hartmann on the German expression used to designate hydraulic 
brake, the trio returned to their seats. 

This ended the deposition of Major Hartmann, who certainly was a 
very valuable witness for the defence, although the effect of his testimony 
was somewhat weakened by General Deloye's theatrical statement in reply 
to M. Lab or i. 

The next witness, M. Louis Havet, a member of the Institute, took up 
the bordereau from a grammatical point of view, declaring it to be his 
conviction, after studying closely the styles of Dreyfus and Esterhazy, that 
the latter wrote it. The witness entered into an interesting analysis of the 
phraseology of the bordereau, pointing out that certain phrases in it were 
met in Esterhazy's letters, but never in those of Dreyfus. He then traced 
the influence exercised on Esterhazy by his linguistic acquirements, nota- 
bly traces of German construction. 

The Government Commissary, Major Carriere, who was always blun- 
dering, asked M. Havet if he had been present at sessions of the court 
before he had testified. 

M. Havet said " Yes," to which the major, with great severity, said: 

"You have been guilty of a grave breach of judiciary discipline." 

To this M. Havet quietly remarked : 

"But I had not been summoned as a witness at the time I attended the 

Major Carriere sat down, checkmated. 

The letters exchanged between Colonel Picquart and General Gonse, at 


tbs time the colonel wanted a thorough investigation into the case, were 
then read, and M. Labori pointed out to General Gonse that these letters 
never alluded to the alleged confession of Dreyfus. 

General Gonse replied that it was because he always advised Colonel 
Picquart not to mix up the Esterhazy and Dreyfus cases. Dreyfus, he 
added, had been condemned, and his case could not be reopened, but they 
were bound to see if there was not another traitor. 

The general then made a bitter complaint of the fact that his letters 
had been communicated to M. Scheurer-Kestner, former Vice-President of 
the Senate. 

Eeferring to this published correspondence, General Gonse exclaimed: 
"When one procures the handwriting of a man one can get him hanged." 
[Laughter.] General Gonse referred to a well-known saying of a French 
judge, Laubardemont : "Give me four lines of a man's handwriting and 
I'll have him hanged." 

Continuing, General Gonse said: 

" When a man intends to publish another's letters he agks what the 
writer's meaning was. That is but fair. But, without doing so, Picquart 
handed my letters to M. Scheurer-Kestner without my knowledge or con- 
sent. These letters have been published in a book which can be found at 
every bookseller's, entitled "Gonse-Pilate.' " 

M. Labori — Was not the bordereau, in conjunction with the ;petit hleu^ 
the basis of Picquart's belief in Esterhazy 's guilt? 

General Gonse — I said to Picquart: "Don't let us trouble about hand- 
writings at present." 

M. Labori — How could the Dreyfus and Esterhazy cases be separated, 
when both were based on a common document? 

General Gonse — Because at that time Dreyfus had been convicted, and 
the bordereau was ascribed to him. 

M. Labori — Was it not possible to reconsider an error? 

General Gonse — There was nothing to prove to nie that the bordereau 
was written by Esterhazy. 

M. Labori — Will General Gonse repeat what Colonel Picquart told 
him concerning the conclusions of M. Bertillon? 

General Gonse — I was not acquainted with M. Bertillon's conclusions, 
but Picc|:uart seems to exaggerate them. 



At M. Labori's request, Colonel Picquart was recalled, and said : 

" In a brief letter which I wrote to General Gonse in regard to M. 
Bertillon's conclusions, I only referred to part of his observations, and the 
best proof that I did not wish to exaggerate them is the fact that I asked 
General Gonse to order a supplemental inquiry." 

Colonel Jouaust — In what form did M. Bertillon communicate the 
result of his examination? 

Colonel Picquart — Verbally, on two occasions. As regards General 
Gonse's letters I handed them to a lawyer when I understood that I 
was the object of abominable intrigues, and when I received from ray 
former subordinate, Henry, while in Tunis, a threatening letter, which 
had been forwarded with the assent of General Gonse and de Bois- 
deffre. If this letter was published I cannot be held responsible for it. 

General Gonse maintained that the Henry letter was written without 
his assent and in reply to an insolent letter from Picquart. The latter, the 
general added, saw machinations everywhere. He alleged that he was sent 
to Tunis to be killed. The court could form its own conclusions. 

Colonel Picquart remarked that he brought the secret dossier to Gen- 
eral Gonse simultaneously with the bordereau, and that the general, conse- 
quently, was in a position to judge of the probabilities of the innocence of 

M. Labori asked if General Gonse knew of the plot hatched against 
Picquart, and if he knew that letters addressed to Picquart at Tunis were 
.opened at the War Ofl&ce? and the general admitted that a letter was 
opened in the Intelligence Department in November. He added that sus- 
picious letters were always handed to him (General Gonse) by Lieutenant- 
Colonel Henry, so that he, the general, might report to the Minister of 
War on them, 

M. Labori — Whom was the letter addressed to ? 

General Gonse — I do not know. No doubt to the chief of some de- 

Colonel Picquart — It was addressed to me personally. 

M. Labori — Does General Gonse know that the words in the letter in 
question were used for the purpose of fabricating a telegram intended to 
destroy the value of the petit lieu? 


General Gonse admitted that the expressions seemed to him suspicious. 
If the letters were seized it was because they were addressed to Picquart 
as head of the department, and it was thought they might relate to official 
matters. He added that Picquart' s letters were only opened when they 
looked suspicious. 

Colonel Picquart retorted that it was curious his opened letters after- 
ward reached him without a sign of having been tampered with. 

Counsel then questioned General Gonse relative to the opening of the 
" Speranza " letter, and the general replied that this letter was not addressed 
to Picquart, but bore a curious address, 

M. Labori — Why did General Pellieux ascribe the letter to Colonel 
Picquart, whom he had never seen ? 

General Gonse — I do not know. 

M. Labori pointed out that the first letter, which was genuine, was for- 
warded to Colonel Picquart after having been opened, while the " Speranza " 
letter was retained. The latter could therefore be regarded as the work of 
a forger. 

Colonel Jouaust — You are entering into a discussion. 

M. Labori (sharply) — No, Monsieur le President; by virtue of Article 
319 of the Code, I merely say what I think in regard to the evidence. 

General Gonse, replying further, dwelt upon the fact that it was neces- 
sary that the Intelligence Department should know the acts of Colonel 
Picquart, who had been removed on account of his conduct. 

M. Labori — Does General Gonse think the Henry forgery was the re- 
sult of a plot against Colonel Picquart? 

General Gonse said he thought the forgery was "an unfortunate pro- 
ceeding." [Laughter.] He would have prevented it if he had been con- 
sulted. But he did not believe there was a plot against Picquart. Henry 
desired to have fresh proof against Dreyfus, " though fresh proof was not 
really required, as the diplomatic dossier contained ample proof." 

M. Labori protested against such a statement, and asked which docu- 
ment of the dossier implicated Dreyfus. 

Colonel Jouaust refused to allow the question, and counsel thereupon 
remarked that he reserved the right to form what conclusions he thought 
proper on this point. 

Colonel Jouaust — Form as many conclusions as you like. 


M. Labori next referred to tlu attempt to bribe Commissary Tomps, 
and to erasures in the ijctit lieu. 

General Gonse declared tlie iKtit bleu already had traces of erasure be- 
fore it was first photographed. 

This M. Labori vigorously denied, and asked that the evidence of the 
experts proving the contrary should be read. 

Here General Eoget reappeared on the scene, and, amid the keenest 
attention of all, described the forgery proceedings against Picquart as re- 
sulting from his (the witness's) discovery that erasures had been made in 
the petit hleu. 

" It was General Zurlinden," Eoget added, "who ordered Picquart to be 
prosecuted. I assume responsibility for all my own acts, but for my own 
acts alone. I am surprised that the defence should arraign me on this 
point. " 

M Labori declared that he merely wished to show that the erasures 
could not be ascribed to Picquart, and that therefore they ought not to 
have formed the basis of a prosecution against him. Then counsel again 
asked that the expert evidence on the subject be read, and Colonel Jou- 
aust promised it should be read during a future session. 

Upon three occasions M. Demange asked General Gonse to explain 
why Picquart, on seeing the jjc^zY lieu, proposed to lay a trap for Ester- 
hazy, unless the ^^c^-iY lieu was addressed to Esterhazy. But counsel 
elicited no reply, until General Eoget came to the rescue and said Pic- 
quart knew Esterhazy was coming to Paris in any case, and if he sent a 
decoy letter, Esterhazy would have appeared to come in response to it, 
whether he had done so in reality or not. 

M. Labori declared this was untrue, and Picquart maintained that his 
conduct throughout was perfectly straightforward. 

M. des Fonds-Lamothe, a former artillery officer, and now an engineer, 
was the next witness. He testified that he was a probationer simultane- 
ously with Dreyfus. The witness said that in August, 1894, he borrowed 
the Firing Manual from Colonel Picquart and kept it as long as he 

"In 1894," M. des Fonds-Lamothe said, "Firing Manuals were given 
to whoever asked for them." 

M. Demange — Can the witness, who was on the Headquarters Staff 


with Dreyfus, say whether, in 1894, he thought he would go to the ma- 
noeuvres ? [Excitement.] 

M. Lamothe — I have only performed a conscientious act. I am con- 
vinced that not one probationer in 1894 could have believed he would go 
to the manoeuvres. 

M. des Fonds-Lamothe also stated that the probationers were informed 
by a circular dated May 15, 1894, that they would not attend the ma- 
noeuvres. The object of antedating the bordereau, the witness added; was 
to make it a prior date to that of the circular. It had since been attempted 
to attain the same object by post-dating the circular. 

As to the post-dating of the circular, witness said he did not doubt that 
different Ministers of War who had expressed opinions in the case were 
perfectly honest, but he thought they had made a mistake. [Excitement.] 

The witness, who was a fellow-probationer of Dreyfus, proved one of 
the strongest witnesses for the defence, as he brought out in support of his 
contention that Dreyfus could not have written the bordereau the follow- 
ing argument: 

"If, as at first asserted, the bordereau was dated May, Dreyfus could 
not have written, ' I am going to the manoeuvres,' because a circular was 
issued in May informing the probationers that they would not go to the 
manoeuvres ; while if the bordereau was written in April, as now asserted, 
Dreyfus could not have spoken of the Firing Manual, which was only 
printed at the end of May." 

Not one of the generals found a reply to the last argument, which 
looked like a clincher, General de Boisdeffre alone declaring that, although 
it was true the circular mentioned was sent to the probationers, the latter 
knew that they could nevertheless go to the manoeuvres if they made spe- 
cial application. Generals Mercier and Eoget then went on the stage and 
confronted M. des Fonds-Lamothe, and a heated discussion ensued. Gen- 
eral Eoget asked when the witness had altered his conviction in favor of 
Dreyfus, and M. des Fonds-Lamothe replied: 

" From the time of the publication of the proceedings before the Court 
of Cassation. I was expecting proof of my comrade's guilt, and I was 
thunderstruck when I saw the date of the bordereau had been altered." 

General Eoget asked if Fonds-Lamothe had not on several occasipng 
expressed his belief in Dreyfus's guilt? 


M. des Foiids-Lamothe admitted that possibly he had done so, before 
the publication of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, but not 
at the time of the prisoner's arrest, for that was kept secret. 

Asked the usual question, the prisoner reminded the court *hat in 1894, 
when Colonel Du Paty de Clam had endeavored to make the date of the 
bordereau August, he had protested that he could not have written the 
sentence, "I am going to the manoeuvres," since he would not be going on 
regimental duty until October, November, and December, and he dwelt 
upon the fact that at the time he handed M. Demange a note on the 

M. Demange corroborated the prisoner's testimony, and pointed out 
that the note mentioned by the prisoner had been added to the dossier by 
the Court of Cassation, while Dreyfus was still on Devil's Island, thus 
precluding all doubt as to its genuineness. 

General Roget here interpellated that requests to go to the manoeuvres 
were usually made verbally, so that it could not be proved whether Drey- 
fus had asked or had not asked to go to the manoeuvres. The general, 
however, admitted that no inquiry had ever been made on this important 

M. Demange created a stir by saying that it was most regrettable that 
no inquiry had been made by the War Office on a point of such impor- 

General Eoget was greatly excited during the foregoing scene, but M. 
des Fonds-Lamothe did not flinch. He retorted quickly to all the gen- 
eral's observations. The two men glared at one another, and once General 
Roget addressed M. des Fonds-Lamothe in such a bullying fashion that 
the audience hooted him. 

M. des Fonds-Lamothe concluded with declaring that if the prosecu- 
tion would follow up the pieces of evidence they would be absolutely 
convinced that Dreyfus did not write the bordereau. 

The court briefly retired and afterward announced that it had been de- 
cided to hear the remainder of Major Hartmann's evidence in camera on 
September 4th. 

The court then adjourned. 


Chapter XLVIL 


The fifth week of the second trial by court-martial of Captain Dreyfus 
began on September 4th, with the largest attendance yet seen in the Lycee. 

The session opened very interestingly with the appearance of M. Cer- 
nuschi, an Austro-Hungarian refugee. 

His letter to Colonel Jouaust, offering his testimony, stated that, hav- 
ing been mixed up in political troubles in Austria-Hungary, he had been 
obliged to seek refuge in France, where he had a friend who was a high 
official of the foreign office of a central European power. This friend, the 
witness said, told him that certain foreign agents in France might denounce 
him, the first name mentioned being that of Dreyfus. Another officer, a 
foreign general of staff, similarly warned him. 

One day, the witness said, when he was visiting the latter, he saw him 
take from his pocket a voluminous packet containing military documents. 
The officer said that in France one could buy anything, adding: 

"What is the good of Jews if you don't use them? " 

Being questioned if he asked the name of the traitor in this case, the 
witness replied: 

"No, because the officer had already said Dreyfus was his informant." 

This answer and the tone in which it was delivered evoked a move- 
ment of incredulity among the audience. Major Carriere, representing the 
Government, asked that the court hold further examination of this witness 
behind closed doors, in view of the diplomatic side of his testimony. 

M. Labori then arose and announced that since the prosecution had 
summoned the aid of foreigners he intended to make formal application to 
have complete steps taken through foreign channels to ascertain whether 
the documents mentioned in the bordereau were delivered to a foreign 
power, and if so, by whom. 


The words of M. Labori created a deep impression, as they made it 
evident that counsel for the defence was on the war-path. 

The second witness called was M. Andr^, clerk to M. Bertulus, judge 
of the Court of Cassation, who received the confession of Lieutenant-Colo- 
nel Henry. M. Andr^ deposed that he overheard Lieutenant-Colonel 
Henry exclaim : 

"Don't insist, I beg of you; the honor of the army must be saved be- 
fore everything." 

The next important witness was the well-known mathematician M. 
Painleye, who began by tearing M. Bertillon's system of argumentation to 

M. Painleye exhaustively criticised Mr. Bertillon's cryptographic sys- 
tem, citing in support of his conclusions the opinion of M. Henri Poin- 
car^, in his opinion the most illustrious mathematician of modern times, 
who, in a letter the witness read, examined seriatim the deductions of M. 
Bertillon and demonstrated their fallacy, also pointing out miscalculations 
made by M. Valerio. Professor Poincar^'s letter fully supported M, Ber- 
nard's conclusions. 

The reading of Professor Poincar^'s letter having been concluded, M. 
Painleye repeated his evidence which had been given before the Court of 
Cassation. He vehemently protested against the false versions that had 
been published of his conversations with M. Hadamard, in which the lat- 
ter was made to affirm the guilt of Dreyfus. On the contrary, the witness 
said, M. Hadamard never doubted the prisoner's innocence. 

General Gonse intervened at this juncture. He was surprised, he said, 
at the importance attached to the evidence of ]\IM. Hadamard and Pain- 
leye. There had been. General Gonse asserted, at least fluctuations in 
their views of Dreyfus's character, for which Dreyfus's own family were 
unwilling to give guarantees. 

M Painleye reasserted that both M. Hadamard and himself had always 
been satisfied that Dreyfus was innocent. 

General Gonse replied, declaring that the whole matter was insignifi- 
cant, and insinuated that the faith of M. Hadamard and M. Painleye in 
the innocence of Dreyfus must have been strengthened recently. 

M. Painleye replied, warmly insisting that he never had any doubt of 
Dreyfus's innocence. 


The two men then went at it hammer and tongs, M. Painleye facing 
General Gonse with his arms folded, and thrust home with his questions 
and retorts until General Gonse became red in the face. Then General 
Roget joined in the discussion. 

As the altercation between General Gonse and M. Painleye was rap- 
idly becoming heated, M, Labori intervened. A sharp passage of arms 
followe4 between M. Labori and Colonel Jouaust, leading to considerable 

M. Labori asked General Gonse why he had incorrectly reported cer- 
tain information he had collected. 

Colonel Jouaust refused to put the question, and invited M. Labori to 
study moderation. 

M. Labori retorted : 

"The defence is using its rights with the utmost moderation." 

Colonel Jouaust — No, you are not. I beg you not to drown my voice 
when I am speaking. Your very tone is wanting in moderation. More- 
over, I consider the question unimportant. 

There were prolonged murmurs of assent and dissent among the audi- 
ence at this declaration by Colonel Jouaust. 

M. Labori said he was surprised that General Gonse had included in- 
correct information in the secret dossier. 

General Gonse — I composed one of the secret dossiers by means of 
annexed documents communicated to the ministry ; but the minds of all 
the War Ministers were made up before they had any cognizance of these 

M. Labori — Does General Gonse assume responsibility for these secret 
dossiers to July, 1898? 

General Gonse — Yes, I had charge of it. 

M. Labori — How happens it, then, that a telegram from the French 
Ambassador at Rome, sent by the Foreign Office to the War Office, refer- 
ring to payments to Esterhazy by an Italian agent, was not added to the 
secret dossier? 

General Gonse — There were plenty of others. All were not included, 
but only the most important, 

M. Labori — Was the information of the French Ambassador at Rome 
of less importance than the garbled conversation of M. Painleye ? 


Colonel Jouaust — I will not put the question. 

M. Labori — Why was information against Dreyfus always included 
in the dossier, and never any incriminating Esterhazy? 

Colonel Jouaubt — I also refuse to put that question. 

M. Labori — All right. I think the question itself fully answered the 

M. Labori then asked General Gonse who compiled the secret dossier 
in question. 

"I did," shouted Commandant Cuignet from the body of the hall. 

Commandant Cuignet then came to the bar, and declared that he had 
omitted all documents from abroad, "because foreigners were interested 
in deceiving us." Several documents of this kind had been omitted, 
particularly one reciting a conversation between a foreign sovereign and 
a French attach^, in the course of which the sovereign was represented 
as saying that what was occurring in France was proof of the power of 
the Jews. 

"That," added the major, "might be regarded as against Dreyfus; but 
nevertheless it was not included in the dossier." 

As he made this statement. Commandant Cuignet turned to a brother 
ofi&cer sitting in the place set apart for witnesses, and smiled with the self- 
satisfied air of a man who had made a distinct score. 

M. Demange rose immediately to express surprise that the document 
in question had not appeared in the War Office dossier. 

Major Cuignet — It does not appear there because it was received at the 
Foreign Office. 

M. Paleologue, intervening, said that the Foreign Office only acted as 
an intermediar}^ in that matter. 

M. Labori commented with astonishment upon the fact that alleged 
fresh proofs against Dreyfus were still spoken of, and demanded that all 
proofs be produced at the secret session of the court-martial at which M. 
Cernuschi was to be examined. 

General Chanoine was asked by Colonel Jouaust if he had any explana- 
tions to offer, and replied that his duty was merely to produce the secret 
dossier, and that he could not say anything regarding documents outside 
the dossier. 

The question of the report drawn up by Commandant Cuignet and Offi- 


cer Wattines, dealing exhaustively with the secret dossier, was then intro- 

General Billot, formerly Minister of War, mounted the platform and 
said he was glad that reference had been made to the secret dossier, as it 
enable him to protest against the insinuation that he had handed Major 
Cuignet a docment from the secret dossier. 

"I gave this report," he said, "to M. Cavaignac, the former Minister 
of War." 

"Then," said M. Labori, "let us have M. Cavaignac's explanation of 
what became of the report." 

Colonel Jouaust called for M. Cavaignac, but the former Minister of 
War was not in the court-room, and an ofhcer was sent to seek him. 

Meanwhile the testimony of two minor witnesses was heard. 

The proceedings to this point were very exciting, as at one time, when 
General Chauoine and M. Paleologue were brought upon the stage to ex- 
plain Commandant Cuiguet's statements, there were five witnesses at the 
bar, all speaking at once and interrupting one another. The testimony 
throughout was interspersed with heated scenes between M. Labori and 
Colonel Jouaust. 

M. Demange during the day read a letter from Eabbi Dreyfus denying 
that he had ever heard a number of scandalous statements which, it had 
been alleged, were made to him. 

Since IM. Cavaignac could not be found in the precincts of the Lyc^e, 
it was decided to hear him on September 5th. 

M. Mayer, who is on the staff of the Tem-ps, testified that the spy 
Gu^nee informed him that the War Office had indisputable proof of the 
guilt of Dreyfus, and mentioned a snapshot photograph representing Drey- 
fus conversing with a millitary attach^ at Brussels. 

After a brief recess of the court-martial Dr. Peyrot deposed that he 
met M. Bertulus, judge of the Court of Cassation, at Dieppe after the ar- 
rest of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, and that M. Bertulus narrated to him 
the dramatic scene in his office with Henry. M. Bertulus was very jubi- 
lant over Henry's arrest, and said he was convinced that, if Henry were 
detained, everything would be known in due time. 

A commissary of the secret police, named Tomps, was then called by 
the defence, and it was admitted at the end of the proceedings that he 


proved indirectly a strong witness for Dreyfus and a correspondingly dam- 
aging witness for the General Staff. His evidence brought out a glaring 
instance of duplicity on the part of the staff office in suppressing docu- 
ments which must weaken its own case. 

Commissary Tomps was called to the General Staff office to investigate 
a case of espionage, and naturally had consultations and close relations 
with officers of the bureau. 

The commissary began his testimony by paying a high tribute to 
Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart's correct attitude and uprightness in the 
Dreyfus inquiry, while other officers sought to undermine him by 
insinuations. Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, the witness asserted, tried 
to induce him to attribute to Picquart the communication of the bor- 
dereau to the Matin, in which journal the bordereau was first pub- 

M. Tomps, who was also a special commissary of the railway police, 
deposed that he photographed the bordereau by order of Colonel Sandherr. 
He had not manipulated th3 plate with a view to concealing marks upon 
the document. When the facsimile of the bordereau was published Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel Picquart ordered the witness to discover who had supplied 
tlie photographic copy. While engaged in the investigation of this matter, 
Lieutenant-Colonel Henry upon one occasion approached the witness and 
clearly evinced great uneasiness at the successive revelations in the Drey- 
fus matter. Henry told the witness that the revelations could onl}' have 
emanated from au individual who had the documents in his hands. 
Henry, the witness testified, added: 

"They can only emanate from our office, where only Picquart, Lauth, 
Gribelin, or myself could have revealed them. I am sure that neither 
Lauth, Gribelin, nor myself have been so indiscreet. You would do well to 
discover who is responsible." 

M. Tomps detailed successive steps in his investigations, showing how 
Lieutenant-Colonel Henry and Major Lauth had brought pressure to bear 
to make him implicate Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart, and their angry 
threats when the witness's report did not suit them. They accused the 
witness of being influenced by some one. 

Pieplying to M. Demange, ]\I. Tomps said that he had only once 
mixed up Esterhazy in connection with the report. Esterhazy had been 


seen at a foreign agent's residence, ^yhicll had two exits, and he had othei 
suspicious relations. Witness had found corroberation of this. 

Answering a question of M. Labori, M. Tomps further detailed Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel Henry's pressure upon him with a view to having the com- 
munication of the bordereau to the Matin ascribed to Lieutenant-Colonel 
Picquart. Witness did not know if the leakages at the War Office con- 
tinued after Dreyfus left. 

Then Commissary Tomps came to the most important portion of his 
testimony, which led to a restricting of his revelations. The witness was 
asked if he had ever investigated the Paulmier affair, which was as fol- 

Paulmier was the valet of Colonal Schwartzkoppen, the German mili- 
tary attach^ at Paris, and it was alleged that he saw on Schwartzkoppen's 
desk documents signed by Dreyfus. The General Staff had declared that 
an effort would be made to get at tlie truth of this story, but Paulmier 
disappeared, and therefore, although the General Staff could not prove the 
story, it could not be disproved. 

To a question regarding this case. Commissary Tomps replied that he 
had not investigated the affair, whereupon M. Labori suggested that M. 
Hennion, sub-chief of the Political Police, who was now in Piennes super- 
intending the precautions for the safety of witnesses, may have been in- 
trusted with the inquiry into this case. 

Colonel Jouaust called to Hennion, who was present in the court-room : 

"Come here and testify." 

M. Hennion ascended the platform and took the oath. He declared 
that he did investigate the case, and actually found Paulmier, who told 
him there was not a word of truth in the whole story. He never saw any 
paper bearing the name of Dreyfus. Thereupon ]\I. Hennion had furnished 
a typewritten report on the subject, stating that Paulmier never saw, or 
said he had seen, such documents. 

M. Labori immediately called attention to the fact that the General 
Staff had suppressed M. Hennion's report in favor of Dreyfus, and only 
declared that the report had been received representing Paulmier as un- 
traceable. M. Labori also pointed out that the Headquarters Staff had 
alleged that the detective only reported that Paulmier had disappeared, 
and that his address was unknown. Probably, M. Labori suggested, the 


gentlemen at Headquarters merely misunderstood the report of the detec- 

Commandant Cuignet and Captain Junck then arose asd insisted that 
only a report that Paulmier co«ld not be traced had been received at the 
otiice of the General Staff". 

M Henniou replied, reiterating that he had forwarded a report to the 
General Staff", giving Paulmier's emphatic denial of the whole story. 

M. Labori asked Commandant Cuignet and Captain Junck where the 
report was that they said had been received by the General Staff stating 
that M. Paulmier could not be found. The officers interrogated were 
obliged to admit that they were unable to find the report. 

M. Labori much regretted that this report could not be found, and 
added, amidst much excitement: 

" But this is always the case. It is always impossible to get at the 
bottom of interesting incidents owing to documents being missing." 

Major Lauth reappeared with the view of refuting the evidence of M. 
Tomps. Lauth declared that no one in the Statistical Section dreamed of 
suspecting Picquarfe when the inquiry was ordered as to how the Matin 
secured the bordereau. Suspicion attached rather to a civilian clerk who 
was on friendly terms with Tomps. 

After Commissary Tomps had replied, the court retired to deliberate on 
the subject of holding another secret session. 

"When the members of the court returned Colonel Jouaust announced 
that there would be a sitting in camera on September 5th. 

The name of ]\Ir. Serge Basset was then called. Mr. Basset is the 
London correspondent of the Matin, who furnished the Esterhazy inter- 
views, and MM. Labori and Demauge pointed out that Esterhazy's confes- 
sions were too important to be discussed at the fag-end of this session. 

Upon suggestion of counsel for the defence, the court therefore ad- 


Chapter XLVIIL 


Maitre Laboei telegraphed personal appeals to Emperor William and 
King Humbert to grant permission to Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major 
Panizzardi, German and Italian military attaches in Paris in 1894, to 
come to Eennes to testify at the trial of Captain Dreyfus. The appeals 
were couched in eloquent terms, invoking the assistance of their majesties 
in the name of justice and humanity. 

The demand of Maitre Labori that the court-martial should issue proc- 
ess, subject to the approval of the two sovereigns, came like a thunderbolt 
on September 5th. The step was fraught with momentous consequences, 
as it afforded Emperor William an opportunity again to assume his 
favorite role of arbiter of the destinies of the world. 

Colonel Jouaust told Maitre Demange at the close of the session that 
if he received official notification that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major 
Panizzardi were coming to depose he would be prepared to adjourn the 
trial pending their arrival. 

A remarkable circumstance, and one that was significant of the rela- 
tions between the two eminent advocates who are conducting the defence, 
was the fact that Maitre Labori telegraphed the German Emperor and the 
King of Italy on his own initiative, without consulting or advising Maitre 

The Minister of War, General the Marquis de Gallifet, on September 
5th sent orders to the generals and other military witnesses to leave 
Pennes and return to their respective posts within two hours after the 
conclusion of the depositions, and not to be present during the pleadings. 

M. Cernuschi, the political refugee, who appeared before the court- 
martial on September 4th, as a witness for the prosecution, was not exam- 
ined by the court during the time it sat behind closed doors on September 
5th. The examination of the secret espionage dossier, mentioned by Cap- 


tain Cuignet at the sitting of September 4th, occupied the great part of the 
secret session of the court. 

When the open session of the court-martial began Maitre Labori sub- 
mitted a preamble and motion in the following terms : 

"As I had the honor to announce on September 4th, I beg to submit 
to the court-martial the following conclusions : 

"May it please the court, in view of the fact that at its sitting on 
Monday, September 4th, the president of the court-martial, by virtue of 
his discretion and power, called as a witness Eugene de Cernuschi, a 
former lieutenant of cavalry in the Austrian army, residing at 37 Eue 
Chambon, Paris, who represented, notably, that Dreyfus had been signal- 
ized to him not only by the chief of a department in the foreign ofhce of a 
central European power, but also by an ofhcer of the Headquarters Staff 
of another central European power, as an informer in the service of foreign 
nations; and, considering that the intervention in such circumstances of 
a former officer of a foreign army against the French officer renders neces- 
sary that the defence abandon the reserve they have hitherto imposed upon 
themselves, and move for the communication to the court of the docu- 
ments enumerated in the papers called the bordereau, all of which com- 
munication to the court will be of such nature as to prove in a striking 
manner the innocence of the accused with regard to allegations which can- 
not entirely or immediately be refuted except by official documents, I 
therefore move that the Government Commissioner request the Govern- 
ment to ask the power or powers concerned through diplomatic channels 
for communication of the documents enumerated in the paper called the 
bordereau. " 

After reading the preamble M. Labori proceeded to inform the court 
that he did not intend to develop conclusions which in themselves were 

"I am well aware," said counsel, "that we are face to face with a pe- 
culiarly delicate situation; but as I have no control over decisions of the 
court with regard to the conclusions I have the honor to submit, I beg to 
state that I have notified the Government Commissioner to name Colonels 
Schwartzkoppen and Panizzardi as witnesses whom I consider it necessary 
to call before the court-martial at Eennes if they are willing to testify be- 
fore it. I beg to point out that it is only now ^nd for exceptional reasons 


that we are obliged to have recourse to the testimony of foreign officers. 
I add that in view of present circumstances there is nothing in this course 
that can cause anxiety. It is in conformity with precedent. The mo- 
ment is very near when truth and light are about to break forth, showing 
the innocence of the accused." 

Major Carriere, in objecting to M. Labori's request, said : 

"We cannot prejudge the issue of a trial in the conclusions submitted 
by M. Labori. One point seems to be extremely delicate. These conclu- 
sions amount to a request that the court instruct the Government Com- 
missioner to ask the French Government to submit to a foreign govern- 
ment, though diplomatic channels, a request for the production of 
documents which are peculiarly non-diplomatic and possess little official 
character. Therefore this mission imposed upon the French Government 
is of a very delicate kind. I do not know if the Government Commis- 
sioner is qualified to perform such a function. Certainly the diplomatic 
point of view seems to me morally and materially impossible. I cannot 
conceive of one government addressing to another such a request, I think 
the end now in view cannot be attained. The defence, which has power- 
ful means behind it, might obtain these documents in a semi-official 
manner, but I think there are reasons to believe the Government can- 
not undertake such a mission. I make all reservations, then, in this 

" As regards notification to me of the names of Colonels Schwartzk op- 
pen and Panizzardi, I see no reason w^hy the gentlemen should not be ex- 
amined by the court if they care to attend. The court will determine 
what course will be taken with regard to the request presented by the de- 
fence concerning documents to be obtained abroad. This seems to me 
beyond our jurisdiction. The court will judge. I beg the president to 
retire with the judges to a private room and decide the question." 

M. Paleologue, the representative of the Foreign Office, supported 
Major Carriere's views. He said : 

" I understand perfectly the importance the defence attaches to the pro- 
duction of the documents enumerated in the bordereau, seeing that the 
whole case turns upon them. But even if the request of the accused ap- 
pears to be based upon logic and justice, it seems inadmissible from a 
diplomatic point of view. Considerations of the highest order are op- 



posed to the Government's taking the initiative it is requested to take 
with regard to a foreign power." 

Colonel Jouaust then said that the court would announce its decision 
in this matter later. 

Serge Basset, the first witness called, testified that the Matin sent him 
to London on five occasions to interview Major Esterhazy, who furnished 
a mass of interesting information concerning the Headquarters Staff. 
Esterhazy declared that he was not the author of the bordereau, though 
the witness did not believe him. Esterhazy complained bitterly of the 
generals, who, he said, had thrown him overboard, adding that there was 
nothing left for him but to blow out his brains. The witness advised 
against suicide, and urged Esterhazy to the utmost endeavor to reveal the 
truth and the part he had played. Finally, while walking in Piccadilly, 
Major Esterhazy said to the witness point blank : 

"Well, Eibon [the witness's pseudonym], I am going to tell you what 
nobody knows. It is I who am the author of the bordereau. I wrote it 
in 1894 at the request of my friend Sandherr. There was a traitor at 
Headquarters, Dreyfus, whom Sandherr told me they wanted to catch. I 
did not hesitate to do what I was asked." 

Mr, Basset added that, with Esterhazy's consent, he had each of 
Esterhazy 's statements verified, Esterhazy saying he had decided to make 
the avowals because he was disgusted wdth his abandonment by the gener- 
als. In conclusion, the witness referred to offers of money to Esterhazy. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Brongniart, a member of the court-martial, asked : 

"Did Esterhazy tell you Dreyfus was guilty?" 

M. Basset — Yes. 

Colonel Jouaust — Tlie two statements of Esterhazy are incompatible. 

M. Basset — It is not for me to reconcile them. 

Major Carriere here made an extraordinary protest against Major 
Esterhazy's insinuations against Colonel Sandherr. 

"I protest," he cried, "in the name and memory of Colonel Sandherr 
against the insinuations introduced against him. I have made it a rule 
not to enter into discussion with witnesses, but, as M. Basset states that 
Major Esterhazy asserted that Colonel Sandherr told him to write the bor- 
dereau, I, on behalf of Colonel Sandherr's memory, protest against such 
insinuations. He was incapable of such an order," 


M. Labori — I hope this protest is not addressed to the defence. 

Major Carriere — It is not addressed to counsel for the defence; it i3 
addressed to the man who was capable of launching such a statement. 

M. Labori — Does M. Basset know that Major Esterhazy addressed let- 
ters to General Eoget? 

M. Basset — I do not. 

M. Labori — General Eoget, perhaps, will tell us. 

Counsel then called upon General Eoget to testify regarding letters he 
had received from Major Esterhazy since the opening of the trial. 

General Eoget looked the ghost of his former assertive self. His face 
was careworn, and showed little of that fighting spirit which first charac- 
terized his appearance upon the stage. 

General Eoget said : " I did receive a letter from Major Esterhazy in 
August, and informed the president of the court-martial of the fact, ask- 
ing him to make what use he liked of it. I refused to open further let- 
ters as soon as I recognized Esterhazy 's handwriting." 

On M. Labori asking to see the letter. Colonel Jouaust said he would 
not put the letter in evidence, because it contained only abuse and recrim- 

As M. Labori protested. General Eoget said he had handed all the let- 
ters to the president of the court-martial, because he did not wish to be 
compromised by Esterhazy, which was evidently the latter' s intention. 

Colonel Jouaust said he had not included Esterhazy's letters in the 
evidence, because he did not wish the proceedings to be unduly protracted, 
but, as the defence insisted, the letters would be produced. 

General Eoget read the one Esterhazy letter which he admitted hav- 
ing opened. In this letter Major Esterhazy said he could not prove the 
existence of the alleged syndicate organized in the interest of Dreyfus, and 
complained that the General Staif had refused to give him a fair hearing. 

M. Labori put a series of questions intended to bring out the fact that 
the General Staff had made use of Major Esterhazy, even after he was 
known to be unreliable. General Eoget said he had not considered Major 
Esterhazy's avowal to be of any value. 

Counsel sought to question General Eoget more closely on his state- 
ment that none of the generals of the General Staff had any relations with 
Major Esterhazy, but Colonel. Jouaust declined, to allow further discussion. 


This led to another scene between the president of the court and coun- 
sel for the defence, M. Labori declaring that General Eoget, who came 
more as a public prosecutor than as a witness, refused to reply to probing 

M. Labori — Does General Eoget consider the confessions of Esterhazy 
valid ? 

General Eoget — No; all versions given by, Esterhazy are quite incor- 
rect. He is an impostor concerning whom I prefer to express no opinion. 

M. Labori — Does General Eoget consider Esterhazy a man-of-straw? 

General Eoget — I have no proof of the fact, but I am inclined to be- 
lieve he is. 

M. Labori — Was he a straw-man in 1894? 

General Eoget — No, I do not think so. 

M. Labori — When, do you think, did he first contemplate playing the 

General Eoget — I have made no investigation on that point. Contra- 
ry to Esterhazy's assertions, the generals of the Headquarters Staff had no 
relations with him. 

M. Labori — Why was Major Esterhazy's role of straw-man not men- 
tioned in the trial of 1898? 

General Eoget — I was not present, and do not know. 

Considerable discussion ensued between Colonel Jouaust and M. La- 
bori, the former attempting to protect General Eoget from too close ques- 
tioning. M. Labori insisted, however, and gained his point. The exam- 
ination proceeded : 

M. Labori — Since General Eoget expresses an opinion on this case, 
upon what does he base it? 

General Eoget — On the part generally played by Esterhazy. 

M. Labori — How do you explain the fact that Esterhazy made no con- 
fession during the Zola trial? 

General Eoget — I do not know. 

M. Labori then expressed surprise that there was no mention of a man- 
of-straw until so late a day, while all the acts of which Esterhazy is ac- 
cused were long known. 

At the request of ]\L Labori the report of the Court of Inquiry, which 
decided whether or not Esterhazy should be cashiered, was read. Accord- 


ing to this report, the coiwt was not permitted to go outside of specific 
questions submitted to it by the Minister of War. One of the questions, 
referring to Major Esterhazy's letter to President Faure, caused Du Paty 
de Clam to admit that he inspired those letters. This made a great im- 
pression upon the Court of Inquiry, which finally concluded that there 
was ground for clemency. 

When the reading of the report was concluded M. Labori vainly tried 
to question General Billot concerning the " document liberateur " which 
secured Esterhazy's acquittal. Colonel Jouaust declaring he would not per- 
mit General Billot to be re-examined. 

General Zurlinden, at that stage of the proceedings, ascended the plat- 
form, dressed in the uniform of his rank, and with his inseparable eye- 
glass. He spoke a few words respecting the General Staff's belief in 
Major Esterhazy. M. Demange said he could not understand why it was 
alleged that the defence desired to compromise the Headquarters Staff, and 
asked whence arose the suggestion that Major Esterhazy was a mere 

General Eoget replied that one reason which induced the belief that 
Esterhazy was a man-of-straw was that his confession that he had written 
the bordereau was absolutely inadmissible. General Ptoget was perfectly 
convinced that Esterhazy was entirely innocent of treason. [Murmurs of 
asset and dissent.] 

General Eoget next attempted, but without success, to refute the evi- 
dence given on September 2d, by M. des Fonds-Lamothe relative to the 
sentence, "I am going to the manoeuvres," saying the circular issued may 
have been indefinite. 

Dreyfus arose and in a clear voice emphatically insisted that the cir- 
cular of May 17, 1894, announcing that the probationers would not go to 
the manoeuvres, was written in the clearest language, which the court 
would see if it were read ; that the court possessed the circular and conse- 
quently could judge whether it contained definite instructions. The pris- 
oner recalled the fact that in August the probationers were asked which 
regiments they desired to join. The situation was very clear. All the 
probationers at the Staff Headquarters had participated in the June jour- 
ney made by the General Staff. He did not know whether or not certain 
officers retained doubts, but he was absolutely certain he had never asked 


for leave to attend the manoeuvres. The sentence in the bordereau, " I am 
going to the manoeuvres," expressed a positive idea. He not only never 
went to the manoeuvres, but never could have attended them. He reiter- 
ated that he had never asked to go to the manoeuvres, for he was absolutely 
convinced that such a request would not be granted. 

M. Deffres, a reporter for the Tevips, of Paris, then testified that he 
saw Esterhazy in London, and that the latter confessed that he was the 
author of the bordereau. The witness added that he raised the question 
of the letters to Mme. Boulancy, and brought away the impression that 
Esterhazy wrote the " Uhlan " letter. 

Senator Trarieux, formerly Minister of Justice, was the next witness. 
He made a long deposition in favor of Dreyfus, reviewing the history of 
the case and his own part in connection therewith. M. Traireux showed 
himself to be an excellent speaker, with a good presence. He had iron- 
gray hair and mustache, and spoke with a clear, resonant voice, which was 
heard outside the court-room. 

M. Trarieux looked straight at the judges while testifying. He pre- 
ceded his evidence by saying he wished to throw light upon his conduct 
in this case. When Dreyfus w^as convicted, th6 witness said, he was con- 
vinced, like everybody else, of the prisoner's guilt; but violent diatribes 
on the fact that Dreyfus was a Jew awakened his suspicions. He there- 
fore consulted M. Hanotaux, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the 
latter informed the witness of the existence of the "Cette canaille de 

D " document, though M. Hanotaux failed to inform him that it had 

been imparted to the judges of the first court-martial, unknown to the pris- 
oner. This fact the witness learned later. 

Continuing, M. Trarieux, whose statement was practically an impas- 
sioned speech for the defence, denounced the secret communication of the 
documents to the court-martial as a monstrous illegality and a violation 
of the most sacred rights of the defence. The witness described as im- 
possible the hypothesis advanced by M. Teyssonieres, the handwriting ex- 
pert, to convince the witness that Dreyfus was guilty. The witness said 
his doubts were confirmed when he heard that M. Scheurer-Kestner had 
secured proofs of the innocence of Dreyfus and the guilt of another. 

M. Trarieux dwelt upon the noble ideal of M. Scheurer-Kestner, who 
had passed sleepless nights, tormented with the thought that an innocent 


man was shedding tears of blood. ^\Tien M. Scheurer-Kestner revealed 
what he knew, the witness was greatly surprised, especially when he 
learned that Colonel Picquart had not succeeded in obtaining the support 
of the chiefs of the army. The witness said he was amazed that the latter 
had not eagerly grasped the opportunity to work together for the rehabili- 
tation of an innocent man. 

During the course of his deposition M. Trarieux said he could not 
agree to a single conclusion reached by General Gonse in his correspon- 
dence with Picquart, and said the latter's removal from the Secret Intelli- 
gence Department was the result of underhand plotting by some one op- 
posed to revision. The witness enumerated in support of this statement 
various forged documents which, he asserted, had emanated from the Se- 
cret Intelligence Department, namely, the " Cette canaille de D — — " 
document, in which the name of Dreyfus had been substituted for the hy- 
pothetical "de D ," the Weyler forgery, and the publication of a fac- 
simile of the bordereau. ■* 

"Lastly," said M. Trarieux, "there appeared the cynical Henry forgery. 
All these facts created a great impression regarding the Headquarter Staff. 
I accuse no one, but assume that the chiefs were deceived." 

The witness pointed out that if any proof of the guilt of Dreyfus ex- 
isted in 1896, General Gonse would have given Picquart an order to stop 
the investigation. 

After an interview with M. Scheurer-Kestner, M. Trarieux added, he 
became convinced of the guilt of Esterhazy, and saw his duty as a consci- 
entious citizen and senator, and perhaps as an ex-Minister, and that to 
fulfil his duty he must devote himself to a work of justice. 

In describing the steps taken in support of revision, M. Trarieux men- 
tioned an interview he had with a foreign ambassador, who, in tones of 
the most profound and affecting sincerity, declared that Dreyfus never had 
relations with him or with any military attach^ or officer of the army of 
his country. M. Trarieux asserted the importance of this statement to 
the ambassador, who energetically reaffirmed the absolute innocence of 
Dreyfus. The ambassador added that he had investigated and found noth- 
ing to implicate Dreyfus. Further, the ambassador said he had seen in 
the hands of Colonel Panizzardi a letter from Colonel Schwartzkoppen 
proving the guilt of Esterhazy, who, his excellency added, generally com- 



muuicated iuformatiou of miuor value. Moreover, at the time of M. 
Selieurer-Kestner's revelations Major Esterhazy called upon Colonel 
Schwartzkoppen, and it was then that a dramatic scene of violent recrim- 
inations and threats occurred. The ambassador also showed the witness 
that the " Cette canaille de D " phrase did not apply to Dreyfus. 

As he proceeded M. Trarieux became more and more impassioned, and 
walked back and forth upon the platform. He explained that, notwith- 
standing the confidential nature of his revelations, the ambassador had 
accorded him permission to communicate it to the judicial authorities. In 
a subsequent interview wdiich the w^itness had with the same ambassador 
the latter had informed him that the Henry forgery, which had just been 
discovered, had been long known to his Government, and that the French 
Government had been aware of it for a year. 

M. Trarieux continued : 

" Exception may be taken to certain passages of what I have asserted, 
but among men of honor who listen there is not one who doubts the sin- 
cerity of my language or the truth of what I have said. It may be said 
that I should not adduce here the evidence of a foreigner. That is M. 
Cavaignac's opinion, and I do not oppose it, but it has no foundation 
either in fact or in law. The testimony of foreigners is not disallowed by 
law, which does not restrict the field of investigation of a judge, to whom 
it merely says: ' See, investigate, enlighten yourself.' Moreover, Major 
Panizzardi was cited to appear in a case of swindling at Versailles. This 
country should be bold and proud enough to seek the truth everywhere. 

" Besides, was there not yesterday somewhat unexpected evidence of a 
foreigner who related remarks of a foreign sovereign? Why should the 
testimony of foreign representatives be opposed here? Even the supreme 
head of the army, the gallant soldier, General the Marquis de Gallifet, 
has not shrunk from adducing before the Court of Cassation the testimony 
of General Talbot." 

M. Trarieux said he suspected neither the sincerity nor the probity of 
the judges of the court-martial of 1894, but only the nature of the docu- 
ments submitted to that tribunal. 

Criticising General Mercier's role as a witness, M. Trarieux said he 
was surprised that the ex-Minister of War had not included in the dossier 
the official version of the Panizzardi cipher telegram. 


With regard to General Eoget and Captain Cuignet, the witness de- 
clared that their allegations that Major Panizzardi had informed his am- 
bassador that Colonel Schwartzkoppen had relations with Dreyfus were 
absolutely unfounded. On the contrary, the witness asserted, Panizzardi 
expressly stated that Dreyfus had no relations with any foreign attach^. 
General Eoget and Captain Cuignet had therefore mis-read — he would not 
say misinterpreted — the report upon which ife was alleged they had based 
their statements. 

General Eoget attempted to intervene, but M. Trarieux continued, re- 
asserting the truth of all he had stated. The ambassador already referred 
to, M. Trarieux declared, said, "Esterhazy is the traitor." 

Continuing, M. Trarieux said : " The Supreme Court has given its de- 
cision, and our eyes confirm its judgment." He then proceeded to show 
that Esterhazy's confession must be genuine. "If," said he, "an ideal of 
the type of traitor is sought, he is the man. He is overwhelmed with 
debts, and is a man of loose habits. He wrote the ' Uhlan ' letter to 
Mme. Boulancy, He had not even the soul of a Frenchman. And yet 
he is placed on a level with a young captain of irreproachable conduct, 
against whom nothing but secret documents has been brought. Doubt is 
no longer possible." 

After demonstrating, in this way, why question of the innocenoe of 
Dreyfus was impossible, M. Trarieux concluded : 

" This is no longer the time for pleading falsehoods ; it is the hour for 
pacification. It is also the hour for justice, which has declared that small 
as well as great, without distinction of sex or person, shall have their rights." 

The deposition of M. Trarieux closed the public session. At its con- 
clusion the court-martial went behind closed doors and examined the 
secret espionage dossier. The court also deliberated upon the application 
of M. Labori for a order upon the Government Commissary to request the 
French Government to invite foreign governments to supply the documents 
enumerated in the bordereau. After a brief interval it was unanimously 
decided to reject the application of M. Labori, on the ground that the court 
(^id not consider itself competent to pronounce a judgment which might 
entail diplomatic action by the Government, It was also decided unani- 
mously to examine M. de Cernuschi on September 6th, behind closed doors. 

The court then adjourned. 








General Zurlinden, Casiniir-r^rier, Billot, Mercier. 







Chapter XLIX. 


It was said on September 6th, that the salvation of Dreyfus was then 
hanging on a word from Emperor William. If the Kaiser consented to 
allow Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the German military attach^, to testify 
before the court-martial, or to send a deposition, or, what was considered 
still more probable, to allow his deposition to be accompanied by the 
actual documents mentioned in the bordereau, then Dreyfus was saved. 

If the Emperor, however, should decide that it was not in the interests 
of Germany for Colonel Schwartzkoppen to intervene, then Dreyfus's case 
was pronounced hopeless and his condemnation certain. 

Maitre Labori insisted that the appearance of Cernuschi on the witness 
stand was quite without precedent, but the anti-Dreyfusards pointed out, 
and with a certain amount of reason, that the counsel for the defence were 
really the first to introduce foreign testimony, as they summoned the Eng- 
lish journalist, Rowland Strong, on the question of Esterhazy's confession 
that he wrote the bordereau. 

The public proceedings of September 6th were marked by three im- 
portant episodes. 

The first was General Zurlinden's admission that the erasure and res- 
titution of Esterhazy's name in the ^e^iY Ueu could not have been perpe- 
trated by Colonel Picquart, and consequently must be attributed to some 
one inside the General Staff. 

The second was the declaration by M. Paleologue that the secret dos- 
sier contained a document which showed that Colonel Schwartzkoppen 
admitted his relations with Esterhazy, and that Schwartzkoppen, in the 
opinion of Paleologue, sent to Esterhazy the identical ]jctit Ueu for which 
Colonel Picquart was detained ten months on a charge of forgery. 

The third was General Billot's insinuation that Esterhazy and Dreyfus 
were accomplices, which led to an impassioned protestation on the part 


of the accused, and to a tlirilling scene between M. Labori and Colonel 
Jouaust, resulting in the lawyer's excited denunciation, tantamount to an 
accusation of open partiality. 

From a spectacular point of view, however, the great event of the sit- 
ting was the battle royal between Maitre Labori and Colonel Jouaust over 
certain questions which counsel wished to put to General Billot. M. 
Labori here lost control of himself under the influence of his deep feeling 
of indignation, and his belief that Colonel Jouaust was deliberately gag- 
ging him in the interest of the military clique. His voice, which at first 
resounded through the court-room, became choked with emotion. The 
spectators held their breath as he retorted defiantly to Colonel Jouaust's 
refusal to put the questions, his words drowning Jouaust's voice in an ir- 
resistible torrent, whose force was heightened by his passionate gestures. 

When he finally fell back iu his seat with a look of hopeless indigna- 
tion, his face was blanched and his fingers twitched spasmodically — a 
speaking testimony to the high tension to which his nerves had been 
wrought by fruitless combat with the iron ruling of the bench. 

Dreyfus too, in his vehement protest against General Billot's insinua- 
tions of his complicity with Esterhazy, recalled his anguished outbreak 
early in the trial. 

It was a strange contrast to hear him a little later, when he had ap- 
parently mastered his feelings, deliver an argumentative reply to Major 
Gallopin, of the artillery, in a calm, moderate tone. Indeed, one was 
almost tempted to imagine that his emotional outcry in reply to General 
Billot was a piece of theatricality. 

Gallopin's evidence left a decidedly unfavorable impression, despite the 
plausibility of the explanation given by Dreyfus. 

Two hours of the opening of the sitting of September 6th were spent 
behind closed doors. The length of time occupied in the examination of 
Eugene de Cernuschi, the Austrian refugee and witness for the prosecution, 
was the subject of much remark, as being indicative of the fact that the 
court found this witness to be worthy of more consideration than it had 
been supposed he deserved. 

Senator Trarieux, former Minister of Justice, resumed his deposition, 
which was interrupted by the adjournment of the court on September 5th. 
He took up the testimony of Savignaud, the former orderly in Tunis of 




Colonel Picquart, and witness for the prosecution, who had claimed to 
have seen letters addressed to M. Scheurer-Kestner, formerly Vice-Presi- 
dent of the Senate, by Picquart, while in Tunis. M. Trarieux declared 
that Savignaud was a perjurer, and that two officers visited Savignaud be- 
fore the court-martial opened. M. Trarieux hinted that the officers drilled 
Savignaud on the testimony he was to give. 

Savignaud replied, reiterating the truth of his previous testimony. 

Colonel Picquart then repeated his denial of Savignaud's story, 

M. Trarieux reviewed the question of the ^;f /zY Ueii, which, he said, 
he was convinced was authentic. He proceeded to comment upon the 
questionable role played by Major Lauth in the affair. 

Major Lauth interrupted the witness, asking that he be allowed a 
hearing, and on the conclusion of M. Trarieux's deposition Major Lauth 
confronted him. The major declared that he had acted honestly through- 
out, and that he had not the least doubt of Picquart's falsification of the 
petit lieu, in order to incriminate Esterhazy. 

A striking incident occurred when Lauth, a moment later, asserted 
that Picquart had always shown the greatest contempt for the officers of 
his bureau, asserting that on one occasion Picquart had brought to the 
General Staff, in the presence of Mesdames Henry and Lauth, a woman, 

Mme. D , who was the wife of a magistrate, and, Lauth intimated, 

Picquart's mistress. 

Picquart arose and cried : " I protest absolutely. " 

At the same time there arose from the spectators a chorus of indignant 
cries of " Oh ! " " Canaille ! " " Cochon ! " (" Pig ! ") , and " Miserable ! " 

The gendarmes were ordered to repress the outbursts of indignation 
which had been evoked by the conduct of Major Lauth in publicly nam- 
ing a woman in a scandalous connection. 

General Zurlinden, formerly Minister of War, follow^ed Major Lauth 
at the witness bar. Zurlinden spoke in justification of his action while 
he was Military Governor of Paris and Minister of War in the matter of 
the prosecution of Picquart, taking the ground that the measure was ab- 
solutely necessary in order that the court should clear up the charge of 
forgery brought against Picquart. IMoreover, General Zurlinden said, the 
Minister of Justice had persuaded him to send Picquart before a military 


General Zurlinden, during the day's testimony, amid intense excite- 
ment, admitted that the Tavemier inquiry showed that the ijctit Um had 
not been scratched when it reached the statistical section of the Intelli- 
gence Department, and that consequently the erasure was not the work of 

M. Trarieux replied to General Zurlinden, reproaching him with Colo- 
nel Picquart's ten months in prison. 

M. Labori then asked a question of General Zurlinden regarding the 
petit hleu. Colonel Jouaust refused to put the question, on the ground 
that the court was engaged in the trial of Dreyfus, and not of the Picquart 

Counsel, however, insisted, taking the ground that the jJdit hlcu demon- 
strated the guilt of Esterhazy, and that consequently it was very impor- 
tant for Dreyfus. 

The lawj^er proceeded with his attack on General Zurlinden, who ad- 
mitted that the magisterial inquiry showed that the petit hleu was not tam- 
pered with when it first arrived at the Intelligence Department, and that 
consequently Picquart could not have been guilty, as alleged, of distorting 
the document. 

M. Labori asked that M. Paleologue, the representative of the Foreign 
Office, be consulted with reference to the reading before the court of diplo- 
matic documents which established irrefutably the authenticity of the petit 

M. Paleologue, who sits behind the judges, came to the front of the 
stage and said that he did not know to what documents M. Labori alluded. 

"The document," replied M. Labori, "in which is recounted a conver- 
sation between M. Delcasse, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the former 
Count von Munster-Ledenburg, German ambassador to Paris, in the 
course of which the ambassador said Colonel Schwartzkoppen had admit- 
ted that he sent Esterhazy a number of telegraphic cards or 2Jctits hleus. " 

M. Paleologue replied that what M. Labori said was quite true, and 
that the document belonged to the diplomatic dossier. As to the petit 
hleu in question, added M. Paleologue, Colonel Schwartzkoppen could 
affirm whether he wrote it himself or whether he had not seen it; but 
in any case, M. Paleologue said, he believed it was sent by Colonel 


This declaration by the representative of the Foreign Office created a 
marked sensation in court. 

M. Trarieux then read a letter, which he wrote to General Billot, 
June 1, 1898, protesting against these falsehoods. To this letter General 
Billot had replied that he had not instituted the inquiry. The judges in- 
trusted with the investigation of the Esterhazy case, notwithstanding their 
conscientiousness, were, M. Trarieux asserted, absolutely deceived by sto- 
ries then current. The judges accepted as gospel all the lies of Esterhazy, 
who, though acquitted, was not tried. 

Replying to M. Labori, M. Trarieux dwelt at length upon the charges, 
which he described as fairy tales, against Picquart, who had been alleged 
to be an agent in the pay of the Dreyfus family, and whose object, as as- 
serted, was to put Esterhazy, an innocent man, in the place of Dreyfus 
the culprit. 

M. Trarieux again entered upon a long statement, in the course of 
which he said Esterhazy was acquitted, not judged. 

Colonel Jouaust stopped the witness, saying he must not speak in that 
way of judges. M. Trarieux replied that he had not referred to judges, 
but to "la chose jug^e." 

Colonel Jouaust then pointed out that M. Trarieux was taking M. La- 
bori's place and making a regular speech for the defence. 

General Billot then confronted M. Trarieux, and, in reply to the lat- 
ter's criticism of him, the general was much affected, and spoke in a husky 
voice. He began by declaring that M. Trarieux had delivered an eloquent 
oration, but that it was special pleading for Dreyfus and Picquart, and an 
arraignment of former ministers. 

The General praised Picquart for his services in the army, and de- 
clared that he had the greatest confidence in him — a confidence which, 
however, he has since been compelled to withdraw. Then, discussing 
Picquart's investigation of the suspicions against Esterhazy, the general 

"Even if Esterhazy should be proved a traitor, that would not prove 
Dreyfus innocent; for in cases of espionage it very often occurs that there 
are several accomplices." 

M. Labori wished to question General Billot, and an altercation with 
Colonel Jouaust ensued. Finally M. Labori cried : 


"Allow me to remark, Monsieur le President, that it has never been 
said that Dreyfus had an accomplice in Esterhazy." 

Dreyfus, who heard General Billot's statement with evident excite- 
ment, also sprang to his feet, and shouted : 

"I protest against this odious accusation." 

M. Labori again insisted that he be allowed to question General Billot. 
Colonel Jouaust still refused, and a heated wrangle once more ensued. 

M. Labori made a passionate protest against the attitude of Colonel 
Jouaust, who then said: 

"I decline to allow you to speak." 

Counsel retorted excitedly : 

" I bow to your ruling, but I take note that every time I put a ques- 
tion which is irresistible you refuse to allow it." 

This declaration M. Labori delivered in a ringing voice, punctuating 
his utterances with striking gestures. The audience burst into loud ap- 
plause. The greatest excitement prevailed, and Colonel Jouaust said: 

" If this demonstration is renewed I will have the court-room cleared. 
Have you anything more to say, Maitre Labori? " 

M. Labori — No, because — and I speak with the utmost respect — I am 
prevented from putting any questions touching the core of the affair. I 
reserve the right to take such action as regard for my responsibility com- 
pels me to take up." 

This sentence was the climax of the strained relations which have pre- 
vailed between the president of the court-martial and M. Labori. 

Major Gallopin, an officer of the artillery, was then examined. He 
proved a rather unfavorable witness for Dreyfus, whom he declared he 
once met on the Boulevard St. Germain, carrying a voluminous package, 
which he said contained secret papers treating of mobilization, and which 
he was carrying to the Geographical Bureau. 

Dreyfus was questioned regarding this statement, and admitted that 
he sometimes took documents home to facilitate work; but he said that 
he did not recall the particular incident to which Major Gallopin referred. 
This admission by Dreyfus made a bad impression, especially when the 
next witness, Major Hirschauer, deposed that he heard Dreyfus express a 
desire to go to the manceuvres. The major, however, could not remember 
the exact date. 



Dreyfus replied: 

" It is very possible that I expressed regrets that I should be unable to 
go to the manoeuvres, and, what is certain, we all knew that none of the 
probationers could go." 

Colonel Picquart was called to the witness stand, and said that Drey- 
fus never applied to him for leave to go to the manoeuvres, adding that he 
was surprised no inquiry had been made upon his point to the chief of 
Dreyfus 's bureau. 

Colonel Jouaust read a letter from the colonel of the one hundred and 
thirty-eighth regiment of infantry, dated September 2d, recalling the 
date of the report on Madagascar, which had enabled him to fix the 
date of the bordereau as August, 1S94. This report, he added, was 
drawn up in the Third Bureau of the General Staff, and consequently 
an indiscretion might have been committed by an officer employed in 
the bureau. 

The deposition of Colonel Du Paty de Clam, which was taken by 
Major Tavernier, was then read. It was more remarkable as being a repe- 
tition of Du Paty de Clam's former evidence, than as containing any new 
revelations. This was what the defence feared, and the reason they de- 
clared they had little faith in the result of an ex-parte examination. 

In his deposition Du Paty de Clam replied to the attacks made upon 
him as a soldier and citizen. He complained that slanderous statements 
unsupported by proof had been made regarding him. The witness laid 
stress upon the fact that the charges had been dismissed, and expressed 
the opinion that the sole object of the slanderers was to impugn the judges 
who condemned Dreyfus in 1894. He denied that he ever had relations 
with Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, or that he was concerned with the pub- 
lication of the article in the Eclair, or with furnishing Esterhazy with the 
" document liberateur. " 

Du Paty de Clam admitted that he had had relations with Esterhazy, 
and repeated the explanations with reference thereto which he gave before 
the Court of Cassation. 

With regard to the Dreyfus case, Du Paty de Clam declared that he 
was not connected with the discovery of the bordereau. It was only on 
pressure, the deposition continued, that the witness accepted the task of 
investigating the charges in this case. After detailing the course of this 


investigation, Du Paty de Clam said that the order for the arrest oi Cap- 
tain Dreyfus had been distinctly issued quite independent of the dictation 

Du Paty de Clam then described the famous dictation scene, in the 
course of which, he said, Dreyfus displayed an emotion regarding the 
cause of which there might be differences of opinion, but the fact, witness 
asserted, was undeniable that M. Cochefert, the chief of the detective de- 
partment, who was present, regarded the prisoner's agitation as an indica- 
tion of his guilt. Dreyfus manifested his excitement by nervous move- 
ments of the jaw, and complained that his fingers were cold. 

Du Paty de Clam defended himself against the charge of being a tor- 
turer of Dreyfus and his family. The deposition contained copies of let- 
ters from Madame Dreyfus establishing the fact that Du Paty de Clam's 
relations with her were always courteous. 

With regard to the date of the bordereau, Du Paty de Clam expressed 
the opinion that it must have been written between the 15th and the 30th 
of August, 1894. 

The witness denied all statements attributed to him with regard to the 
incorrect versions of the Panizzardi telegram. 

Later in his deposition, Du Paty de Clam referred to the preparation, 
by himself and Colonel Sandherr, of a secret commentary intended to 
show who was the traitor among the officers at the headquarters of the 
General Staff ," who must be a a Captain D ." None of the docu- 
ments accompanying the commentary mentioned the Panizzardi telegram 
nor the manufacture of a shell. 

Eegarding the interview with Captain Dreyfus, Du Paty de Clam de- 
clared that he never said to Dreyfus : 

"The minister knows you are innocent." 

The Minister of War never spoke of delivering documents in order to 
obtain others. What Dreyfus said was : 

"No, no. Major, I do not wish to plead extenuating circumstances. 
My counsel has promised me that in three, five, or six years, my inno- 
cence will be admitted." 

Later Dreyfus said: 

"Major, I know your belief. I have not opposed it. I know you are 
an honest man, but I assure you you have made a mistake. Seek what 


you call ray accomplices, and what I call the culprits, and you will find 
them." The prisoner's last word to him was : "Seek." 

The deposition of Du Paty de Clam made no reference to cases con- 
nected with that of Dreyfus. The witness swore that everything con- 
tained in his statement was true. 

The court-martial then adjourned. 

As a result of the scene between Colonel Jouaust and M. Labori the 
latter wished to retire from the case. He was convinced that the judges 
were utterly hostile to him, and it is said that he had conceived the idea 
of a dramatic withdrawal at the opening of the session of September 7th. 
A meeting of the friends of M. Labori was held at his house during the 
afternoon to decide whether such a step would be advisable. 


Chapter L. 

A VEKY pessimistic feeling was produced among the friends of Drey- 
fus on September 7th, by the decision of Colonel Jouaust not to allow 
the evidence of Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi in the 

It was predicted that it meant the certain condemnation of Dreyfus. 
This was the unanimous opinion of the anti-Dreyfusards, and it was the 
impression of a majority of the Dreyfusards, whose last hope was that 
Colonel Jouaust only dared to refuse to take the evidence of Colonel 
Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi, because the court had already 
made up its mind to acquit the prisoner. 

At the opening of the day's session of the court-martial Maitre Labori 
announced that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi would be 
unable to appear personally before tlie court, and so he proposed that a 
rogatory commission should be telegraphed to receive their depositions. 

In making his motion for the appointment of a rogatory commission, 
M. Labori said: 

" I have received notice that, for reasons of public policy, Major Paniz- 
zardi and Colonel Schwartzkoppen could not come to Piennes to testify be- 
fore the court-martial. But I am also informed from the same quarter 
that they would answer the questions of a commission sent by the court- 
martial. I therefore beg the court to direct, as in the case of Colonel Du 
Paty de Clam, that Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi be ex- 
amined by commission. 

"The court will certainly understand that the defence must submit to 
the necessities of public policy, which are, I have no doubt, similarly un- 
derstood by the Government of the republic. I shall, therefore, be glad if 
you will ask M. Paleologue if, in this case, the telegraph may be employed. 
I think such a method would be exceedingly rapid, and I am convinced 


that the president of the court-martial and the court-martial itself will not 
refuse to allow the defence to ascertain the truth." 

Counsel added that he would make a formal application to this effect. 

Colonel Jouaust, president of the court, then invited the opinion of M. 
Paleologue, who replied: 

" It is clear that considerations of public policy stand in the way of 
foreign military attaches appearing in a French court to testify in regard 
to facts of which they had cognizance in their diplomatic capacity. Colo- 
nel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi will not attend the court-mar- 

"As regards the dispatch of a commission, I believe the Foreign Office 
will not oppose it. But I must make all reservations regarding the use of 
the telegraph, I do not know if that would be a regular proceeding." 

M. Labori— But couriers can be employed. 

M. Paleologue — I do not think the telegraph can be used. 

Major Cariiere — I do not oppose the appointment of a commission. 
It is a matter for the president to decide. There are no legal objections, 
provided we respect the provisions of the Military Code, which do not per- 
mit an interruption of the trial. Such procedure must not be allowed to 
hinder the progress of the trial, and must, therefore, be rapid. 

M. Labori — I think it possible to make the procedure I propose very 
rapid. The IMilitary Code provides for a suspension of forty-eight hours. 
On the other hand, the court might shorten its sittings, reducing them 
four hours each. In any case, I shall have the honor of formulating an 
application which I will submit to the court. 

He then drew up a formal application that Colonel Schwartzkoppen 
and Major Panizzardi be cited as witnesses, and that eight questions 
should be telegraphed them, to which they should reply under oath. 

While M. Labori was drafting his motion, a member of the court-mar- 
tial remarked that certain documents mentioned in Du Paty de Clam's 
depositions could not be found either among the records or in the statisti- 
cal department of the War Office. 

To which M. Demange replied that perhaps they were under seal. 

M. Labori then read the terms of his formal application, which stated 
that as considerations of public policy prevented the appearance of Colonel 
Schwartzkoppen, and Major Panizzardi before the court-martial, commis- 


sious should be sent to examine them, in order to permit these officers to 
state under oath all that they knew in regard to the case. 

Counsel furthermore requested the court to have the following ques- 
tions put to each of the two officers: 

"First — On what date did you receive the documents mentioned in 
the bordereau ? 

" Second — Are these documents in the same handwriting as the borde- 
reau, which you know from a facsimile ? 

" Third — What did these documents contain ? 

"Fourth — Did you receive the Firing Manual, either in the original 
or a copy ? 

"Fifth — Did you receive the graduation bar? 

"Sixth — Since what date did you receive those documents? 

" Seventh — Was it to the same correspondent to whom you address the 
2Jetit Ueu that was referred to in the conversation between Count von 
Munster and M. Delcasse? 

"Eighth — Have you had direct relations with the accused? " 

M. Labori urged the importance of the evidence of these two witness- 
es, whom, he declared, he would not have cited if Cemuschi had not been 
called. Counsel pointed out it was possible to suspend the proceedings 
long enough to obtain replies to the questions, which he considered indis- 

The court made no answer at once, but retired to deliberate on M. La- 
bori's application. Every one in court stood up when the judges returned 
fifteen minutes later. 

Colonel Jouaust gave the order " Present arms " to the guard of soldiers 
afe the bottom of the hall, while he, standing, and with the other judges 
standing on either side of him, read the decision that the president, Colo- 
nel Jouaust, was competent to order a rogatory commission, but that the 
judges as a body, according to the ]\Iilitary Code, were not competent to 
do so. 

M. Labori thereupon asked Colonel Jouaust if he still maintained his 
refusal to appoint the commission, the colonel, when M. Labori submitted 
his conclusions, having said he was opposed to the application. 

Colonel Jouaust replied, "Yes "; and by this decision the evidence of 
Colonel Schwartzkoppen and Major Panizzardi, who were prepared, it 


was said, to swear they never had relations with Dreyfus, was thus 

The refusal of Colonel Jouaust seemed inexplicable, because it appeared 
to be his duty to receive all evidence directly beariug on the case, and 
more especially the evidence of the two attachc^s, the refusal of whose testi- 
mony was thought to be equivalent to a slight on their respective countries. 

The chief of detectives, M. Cochefert, the first witness of the morning, 
deposed favorably regarding the attitude of Dreyfus when Du Paty de 
Clam dictated the bordereau to him. The witness said Dreyfus appeared 
not to be troubled until afterward, when Du Paty de Clam questioned him. 

M. Cochefert referred to a revolver found on a table near the desk at 
which Dreyfus was then seated, and he recounted how the prisoner, on 
perceiving it, cried : 

"I will not kill myself. I will live to establish my innocence." 

The clerk of the court then read a letter from Captain Humbert to the 
effect that Dreyfus had expressed a keen desire in 1894 to enter the Sta- 
tistical Section of the War Office, and saying that he met Dreyfus once 
carrying some voluminous packets of maps and documents, and remarked 
that he w^as acting very imprudently. 

In reply to the usual questions, Dreyfus said that Captain Humbert's 
recollections were not exact, adding : 

" In regard to the papers mentioned, perhaps it would be advisable to 
have the Commissariat Tables of Plan 13 produced, when you will see that 
they are of no great importance. It is certain I was acquainted with five 
or six tables, the printing of which I was instructed to superintend." 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you apply to Colonel Sandherr with the view 
of entering the Statistical Section? 

Dreyfus — No, no. 

Colonel Jouaust — Did you not express such a desire to your com- 
rades ? 

Dreyfus — No. 

Savignaud, the former orderly of Colonel Picquart, and one of the wit- 
nesses, asked the court to certify that Senator Trarieux, the former Minis- 
ter of Justice, had called him an impostor and a perjurer. 

M. Trarieux rose and insisted tliat Savignaud's evidence was a contra- 
dictioBi of the evidence of Colonel Picquart, M. Scheurer-Kestner, and M. 


Roque, proving, he claimed, perjury somewhere, but not by the last trio 
of witnesses. 

M Trarieux added that his statements were in accordance w^ith the 
dictates of his soul and conscience, and, if he was amenable to the law for 
them, there was also a law against perjurers. 

General Mercier here reappeared on the scene. After saying that the 
evidence of Captain Freystaetter must have greatly influenced the judges, 
he referred to the attacks on himself made by the revisionist newspapers, 
saying that in consequence of Freystaetter's assertions he had been de- 
scribed as a forger, and it was great satisfaction to him now to be able to 
reply to Captain Freystaetter by adducing, in addition to the testimony of 
Colonel Maurel, an addition to his own testimony, which was confirmed 
by Colonel Du Paty de Clam's deposition. 

Continuing, the general said that information which he had happily 
been enabled to obtain would completely enlighten the judges. He main- 
tained that in 1894 he gave orders that the various translations of the 
Panizzardi telegram received from the Foreign Office should not be taken 
into account, and he declared that the testimony of General de Boisdeffre 
and M. Gribelin on this point agreed with his. 

The sealed envelope handed to the court-martial of 1894, the general 
also said, was made up in his presence, and did not contain the Panizzardi 
telegram. It was sealed by Colonel Sandherr, and Colonel Du Paty de 
Clam was entrusted with conveying it to the court-martial. 

He, the witness, had questioned the officers who acted as judges of the 
court-martial of 1894, in regard to the presentation to the court of a se- 
cret envelope. All, with a single exception, had assured him that they did 
not remjember reading the Panizzardi telegram, although they could not 
declare under oath that it was not among the documents. 

Three officers apologized for the vagueness of their recollections after 
the lapse of five years. Mercier asseverated that these statements them- 
selves constituted proof, but he thought it necessary to point out contra- 
dictions in the evidence of Captain Freystaetter. He read an old letter 
from Freystaetter to a friend, in which the captain expressed his belief in 
the guilt of Dreyfus. 

The general quoted a number of statements to the same effect, alleged 
to have been made by Freystaetter. 


General Mercier, continuing, said lie reproached Captain Freystaetter 
for engaging in newspaper discussion, which, perhaps, resulted in mixing 
his ideas so that others were being substituted for his personal recollec- 
tions, which indicated a certain mental derangement. In support of the 
theory of lunacy, Mercier mentioned that Freystaetter, while in Madagas- 
car, was once guilty of disobeying his commander, and on another occa- 
sion the captain executed thirty natives without trial. 

The allegations of General Mercier caused so much excitement in court 
that Colonel Jouaust requested the general not to enlarge on the subject. 

In conclusion Mercier invited the judges to pay no attention to Cap- 
tain Freystaetter's statement, but to accord to the evidence which he him- 
self had had the honor to give, all the confidence and moral authority 
they would have reposed in it if the Freystaetter incident had never hap- 

M. Demange said he agreed with General Mercier that the Freystaet- 
ter incident could be dropped without injuring the case of Dreyfus. 

"Thank God," said the lawyer, "I am here in a court of justice, where 
the question of justice is being discussed before honorable men and loyal 
soldiers. Then let this incident be forgotten." 

The reports of experts were next read, showing that the tracing paper 
on which the bordereau was written was similar to paper used by Ester- 
hazy, and official records were produced, showing that Dreyfus was wrong 
in regard to the number of probationers in 1894. 

The prisoner admitted that his recollections were perhaps not precise. 

M. Labori said he regretted that Cernuschi was not present, as coun- 
sel desired to question him, and, in any case, he wanted to add to the 
dossier certain letters showing that Cernuschi had suffered from insanity, 
and was destitute of moral sense. The defence had discovered that appli- 
cations had been made for Cernuschi's extradition, and that lie was pro- 
nounced to be altogether worthless and unreliable. Counsel also said that, 
although representing himself to be a political refugee, if Cernuschi had 
not left Austria he would have been placed in an asylum for the insane. 

M. Labori then asked that a letter received from the witness Grenier 
should be read. The Government Commissary admitted receiving it, but 
said that the letter was of no importance. Counsel thought otherwise, 
and read a copy of the letter which Grenier had sent him simultaneously 


with one to Major Carriere. The letter referred to a letter from Esterhazy 
showing the latter's great iaterest in questions outside of his duties, that 
Esterhazy had in his possession official documents, that he concerned him- 
self with the mobilization of the troops, and that he had expressed su- 
preme contempt for the French army. 

Colonel Jouaust remarked that if the letter had reached him he would 
not have made use of it, as it had nothing to do with the Dreyfus case. 

This called forth murmurs of assent and dissent, and M. Labori retorted 
that he was of quite an opposite opinion. He said that General Chanoine 
had handed the court a latter from Colonel Schwartzkoppen to his govern- 
ment, announcing that he was about to send them information regarding 
the real effectiveness of the Russian army, and this was also referred to in 
Esterhazy's letter. Colonel Schwartzkoppen had also mentioned the Paris 
and Toul manoeuvres, which would explain the phrase, " I am going to the 
manoeuvres." This letter was written a fortnight after the arrest of Drey- 
fus, and M. Labori declared that he would be glad to hear the generals on 
that point. 

General Eoget accordingly marched to the platform. In regard to the 
mobilization of the Russian army, he said that a well-informed article on 
the subject had appeared in the Revue Bleue, owing to the indiscretions of 
a certain person he would not name, as he, the general, did not wish to 
compromise him. 

Captain Cuignet confirmed General Eoget's statement, adding that it 
must not be concluded that the information furnished to the German gen- 
eral staff did not emanate from Dreyfus. The fact that it took a fort- 
night to reach its destination proved nothing. 

General Mercier also intervened to show that any information fur- 
nished by Esterhazy could have had no value. 

Colonel Picquart offered explanations of the leakage in 1893, and Gen- 
eral Mercier again jumped up and protested against indiscretions commit- 
ted in favor of a former minister being called leakages. 

At the request of M. Labori, the testimony given by the witness 
named Ecalle before the Court of Cassation was read. It described how 
Esterhazy employed Ecalle to execute a sketch of a rifle, which afterward, 
Esterhazy said, he had sent abroad with an imaginary plan of mobilization. 

After further testimony on this point, a letter from Esterhazy to Gen- 


eral Eoget was read, in which the writer complained that no use was 
made of his information, and violently attacking M. Bertillon, who, ac- 
cording to Esterhazy, ought to be in an asylum for the insane. 

Esterhazy complained of his miserable condition, described General de 
Boisdeffre as a scoundrel, and the Eclio de Paris as a "dirty Jew sheet," 
adding that it was a mistake to abandon him and then prosecute him. 

After repeating his threats, Esterhazy wrote that if he were the moral 
author of the bordereau he could not have supplied the information con- 
tained in it, and expressed surprise that nothing had been said in regard 
to the rule played by Colonel Picquart. He then attacked, turn about, 
all the officers of the General Staff, 

At this juncture ]\I. Labori said that he thought that the court had 
heard quite enough of this edifying letter, and asked that the rest of it be 
not read. But Major Carriere objected, remarking that the letter was 
most interesting. 

M. Labori — They are all interesting, and I would like to have them 
all read. 

Major Carriere — They are all of the same degree of interest. They 
are all rot. 

The reading then proceeded. In a letter containing a long string of 
bitter recriminations and violent insults, particularly in regard to certain 
members of the court-martial, whose impartiality was impugned, Esterhazy 
declared in conclusion: 

" I will say or do nothing to increase the dangers of the situation. 
But I, an old and faithful servant, have been denounced and have fallen 
beneath the blows, after having been basely abandoned by the Boisdeffres, 
Billots, and other generals." 

After Major Hartmann had briefly refuted General Mercier's state- 
ment that the Germans always termed the hydro-pneumatic brake the 
"hydraulic brake," which Hartmann declared to be absolutely untrue. Colo- 
nel Jouaust, though requested by M. Labori to allow M. des Fonds- 
Lamothe to be re-examined, refused to hear any further testimony. 

Thereupon on September 7th, at 10 :30 a.m., the Government Com- 
missary, Major Carriere, began his speech closing the case for the prosecu- 
tion. He concluded at 11 :50 a.m. His speech, lasting only an hour and 
a quarter, was generally characterized as one of the weakest and most 


ridiculous orations ever heard iu a court of law. His absurd arguments, 
colored by his grotesque mannerism, evoked continual outbursts of de- 
risive laughter. 

Major Carriere, after reading the judgment of the Court of Cassation, 
and the questions referred to the present court-martial, said: 

"Colonel and Councillors: By a judgment, June 3d, last, of the 
Court of Cassation, the Dreyfus case was sent before a court-martial at 
Eennes. I read the judgment at the beginning of the trial. It quashes 
and annuls the judgment of Deceniber 22, 1894, convicting Captain Al- 
fred Dreyfus, and sends him before a court-martial at Eennes to be tried 
on the following question : 

"Is Captain Alfred Dreyfus guilty of having in 1894 practised machi- 
nations for the benefit of a foreign power, by delivering the documents 
mentioned in the bordereau? 

"The task of the court-martial at Eennes is the same as that of 1894. 
The trial has been public, and has been conducted with all the fulness 
possible to answer the requirements of justice and public opinion. It is 
my duty to discharge the task of justice with moderation. I have no per- 
sonal opinion to defend. I have carefully examined the documents, seek- 
ing scrupulously to ascertain the truth, without malice, without passion, 
and without fear." 

Major Carriere then entered upon a review of the case. He defended 
the secret sessions as being necessary, while they did not injure the diffu- 
sion of light; traced the espionage plot, recalled the discovery of the bor- 
dereau and the investigation which was said to show that the traitor was 
Dreyfus, and reviewed his prosecution and trial and the judgment of 1894. 

"The proceedings," said Major Carriere, "were conducted according to 
the prevailing conditions. I will say nothing more in regard to the moral 
character of the prisoner, the question of his gambling or consorting with 
loose women. It has been said that we military men are not clever, and 
are not tactful. Maybe that is so. But we are a simple and upright 
people, who proceed direct toward our duty, and our acts are always char- 
acterized by good faith." 

The major then proceeded to examine the bordereau, saying that apart 
from the question of the handwriting, upon which even the experts fell 
out, he thought that the reference to covering of troops and the artillery 


formation were very significant. Esterhazy, he pointed out, would have 
had no difficulty in securing the Firing Manual, therefore he could hardly 
have written that it was difficult to get ; while Dreyfus could not easily 
have obtained it. 

Discussing the sentence about going to the manoeuvres, which has 
caused so much controversy, Major Carriere declared that it would have 
been impossible for Esterhazy to write it. He referred to the complexity 
of the prisoner's character, and proceeded to dilate upon the impartiality 
with wliich he had examined the whole case, upon which, he asserted, he 
had entered with his opinion wholly unformed. 

" I said to myself, let us take the bull by the horns. It was Picquart 
who brought about the revision. Let us study Picquart. I found his case 
perfectly constructed, and for a moment hoped we might acquit and reha- 
bilitate an innocent man. It would have been all to our advantage and no 
trouble to repair a judicial error of the judges of 1894, whose honor has 
never been impugned. That would necessarily have pacified the public 
mind. But closer investigations of Picquart's case showed fissures. My 
momentary conviction of the innocence of Dreyfus was transformed into 
a stronger belief in his guilt, which has been confirmed by the testimony 
of the witnesses ; and I come here to tell you, on my soul and conscience, 
that Dreyfus is guilty, and I demand the application of Article 76 of the 
Penal Code." 

The last statement of the Government Commissary caused a great deal 
of excitement in court, which was afterward adjourned for the day. 

When Major Carriere had concluded, and Colonel Jouaust had ordered 
the adjournment of the court, Dreyfus rose quickly and apparently not de- 

As the prisoner was passing counsel's table, M. Labori stopped him and 
whispered, "Courage." Dreyfus smiled and nodded, and, as he proceeded, 
M. Jaures, the Socialist leader, and a number of others seated on the 
benches before which Dreyfus passed, repeated M. Labori's word of en- 

The most elaborate police measures were to be taken during the last 
day of the trial. Eight gendarmes were to be distributed in the court- 
room. Twenty gendarmes and a detachment of infantry were detailed 
for duty in the courtyard j the cordons of troops and gendarmes in the 


vicinity of the Lyct^e were ordered tripled and placed farther back; de- 
tachments of gendarmes were to be posted on the squares and bridges of 
the town, and mounted gendarmes had beei instructed to patrol the prin- 
cipal streets of Eennes. Also the garriso is of neighboring towns were 
held in readiness to be despatched to Renu 3s at a moment's notice. 



Chapter LL 

The development of the Dreyfus case on September 8th was marked 
by three distinct matters, namely, the opening of the speech of Maitre 
Demange for the defence ; the decision of Maitre Labori not to make a 
speech for the defence, as he feared to irritate the judges; and an official 
statement from Berlin that German agents never had any relations with 
Dreyfus. The latter was issued in the following terms : 

Berlin, September 8th. — The Reichsanzeiger this evening, in the official 
portion of the paper, publishes the following statement: 

"We are authorized to repeat herew^ith the declarations which the 
imperial Government, while loyally observing the reserve demanded in 
regard to internal matters of another country, has made concerning the 
French Captain Dreyfus. 

" For the preservation of his own dignity and the fulfilment of a duty 
to humanity. Prince von Munster, after obtaining the orders of the Empe- 
ror, repeatedly made in December, 1894, and in Januar}', 1895, to M. 
Hanotaux, M. Dupuy, and M. Casimir-Perier, declarations to the effect 
that the Imperial Embassy in France never maintained either directly or 
indirectly any relations with Dreyfus. 

"Secretary of State von Buelow, in the Reichstag January 24, 1898, 
made the following statement: 

" ' I declare in the most positive manner that no relations or connec- 
tions of any kind ever existed between the French ex-Captain Dreyfus, 
now on Devil's Island, and any German agents.'" 

At Rennes this announcement was not received until late in the even- 
ing of September 8th. 

The hall of the Lycee was crowded at the opening of the session of the 
court-martial vSeptember 8th. At an early hour a long line of people 
awaiting admission was formed outside the door. Standing-room at the 


back of the court commanded fifteen and twenty francs for places, and the 
demand was increasing as the trial approached its end. Among the privi- 
ileged persons in attendance was Baron Eussell of Killowen, Lord Chief 
Justice of England, who was conducted to a seat by General Chanoine and 
]\I. Paleologue, of the French Foreign Office. The chief justice came to 
Rennes especially from Paris, where he had attended the sessions of the 
Anglo-Venezuelan boundary arbitration commission, in order to see some- 
thing of the trial. 

Maitre Demange at once began his speech for the defence. He pointed 
out the strength of the testimony against Esterhazy, and during the course 
of his remarks he cried : " Do you think if Dreyfus and Esterhazy had 
been before the court-martial in 1894, that the court would have con- 
demned Captain Dreyfus ? " 

As he asked this question, counsel pointed to the prisoner sitting be- 
fore him and added: "No." 

The voice of M. Demange was beautifully modulated, sometimes soft 
and persuasive and at other times sharply argumentative. Then again he 
frequently filled the hall with his stentorian tones, as he thundered with 
indignation at the charges against Dreyfus, the shameful weakness of the 
prosecution, and in denunciation of Esterhazy. 

Captain Dreyfus listened to the oration of M. Demange with a mask 
of impassibility resembling his attitude during the first days of the trial. 
Whatever the prisoner's feelings were as he heard M. Demange pleading 
for his liberty, he carefully concealed them. 

It was generally noticed that when Maitre Labori entered the court that 
morning he spoke to M. Demange in a deprecating tone, and a sharp dis- 
cussion ensued, almost bordering on a dispute. The same thing took place 
during the usual brief suspension of the sitting. The two lawyers appar- 
ently were at loggerheads about the best method of conducting the case, 
which, it was said, boded no good for Dreyfus, and nobody was astonished 
when it was announced that M. Labori would not address the court in be- 
half of the prisoner. 

The following, in substance, was the plea of ]\I. Demange : 

" However solemn the occasion may be, I must at the outset protest 
with all my soul against the allegation which one of the witnesses did not 
shrink from uttering. The witness said that whoever advocated the revi- 


sion of this case, that is to say, whoever believed in the innocence of 
Dreyfus, was working against the army and against the country. I here 
declare that he does not know me, and that he does not know Maitre 
Labori. Neither M. Labori nor myself would be here if those statements 
were true. Let me tell you simply this : The day on which, amid the 
shock of furious political passions, I saw let loose over our country this 
tempest of madness, when I saw everything I had learned to revere and 
love since childhood imperilled, I, a Frenchman, the son of a soldier, en- 
dured every torture. When I turn my eyes toward Devil's Island, where 
was buried alive one who, from the bottom of my heart, I believe to be a 
martyr, I began to wonder if Divine justice had not abandoned him. 
Since then I have recovered. I have hearkened to the voice of my con- 
science, and have pursued an undeviating course, free from anger or pas- 
sion, not heeding hatred or prejudice. I have done my duty. You will 
do yours, which is to mete out justice." 

Continuing, M. Demange said he wished to define clearly the prisoner's 
position. On this subject he said : 

"When the case of the revision began, Dreyfus was a convict, and se- 
rious presumptions of his innocence were necessary before the case could 
be taken up by the Court of Cassation. To-day it is for the Public Prose- 
cutor to prove his guilt. Let no one blame us, therefore, if we have not 
proved the innocence of our client. The task was not incumbent upon 
us. It is for the Government Commissioner to show that he is guilty of 
the abominable crime imputed to him." 

Counsel then protested against the suggestion that an attempt had 
been made to put Esterhazy on trial, explaining that all the defence de- 
sired was that the innocence of Dreyfus should appear. M. Demange 
added that he was satisfied that the judges of 1894 were honest, like the 
present judges. But if the former had seen Esterhazy's handwriting, he 
asserted, they would have pronounced a different verdict. 

Counsel then entered into details, dealing with the information col- 
lected regarding the prisoner in 1894, during the course of which he re- 
marked : 

" The only real information is that found in the cries from his soul. 
Even before his conviction, what was his first cry ? * I will not take my 
life because I am innocent,' " 


Proceeding, M. Demange dilated upon the prisoner's increasing pro-> 
testations of innocence, and his touching letters to his family, ex- 
claiming : 

" In them you see his soul, which speaks. Alone in his tomb he com- 
munes with himself. He cherishes the hope of seeing his innocence 

Among the letters of Dreyfus read by M. Demange was one in which, 
after asserting his innocence, and declaring that he always served the tri- 
color flag with devotion and honor, the prisoner complained that he was 
treated on Devil's Island like an ordinary convict. It concluded : " I wish 
to live." 

"That is a soldier's soul," exclaimed M. Demange, "and it is that man 
you call a traitor. That is the man who, in your presence, restrains his 
sobs and his emotions. Ah, gentlemen, I would rather defend guilty men 
who are clever dissemblers, than an innocent man who is too sincere." 

After this, other letters of the prisoner were read, all breathing the 
same desire to live to see his honor restored, though the writer was broken 
down in health and spirit. One letter, written in 1897, appealed to Gen- 
eral de Boisdeffre to lend his generous aid in securing for the writer res- 
toration of his liberty, of which he had been robbed. Writing to his 
brother, the prisoner said : 

" While one or more scoundrels are walking free, it would be a happy 
release for me to die. But it would be a disgrace to Lucille and my chil- 

The letter concluded urging his brother to find the culprits, while care- 
fully protecting the interests of the country. 

" Is not that the cry of an innocent man ? " asked M. Demange, added : 
" Yet, though General de Boisdeffre received the letter, he did not forward 
it to Mathieu Dreyfus. Five Ministers of War pronounced Dreyfus 
guilty, while admitting that it was impossible to produce proofs. Gen- 
eral de Boisdeffre, General Gonse, and General Eoget also affirmed their 
belief in his guilt. But, happily, they stated reasons, and, instead of 
proofs, only accumulated presumptions." 

Counsel, after pointing out that the generals only studied the case at 
the very moment when public aberration had reduced the whole question 
to a conflict between Dreyfus and the army, thus making it impossible that 


the generals should not be prejudiced, and probabilities and presumptions 
seemed to them to be proofs, said : 

" I must acknowledge, however, the honesty and honorable conduct of 
the generals, who could not have acted otherwise than they have done." 

M. Demange then paid an eloquent tribute to the "honesty of purpose" 
manifested by the generals. Dealing next with the alleged confessions, 
counsel read the report of Captain Lebrun-Eenault, of the Piepublican 
Guard, who had the prisoner in custody previous to his degradation, and 
maintained that the exact words of Dreyfus, which were now known only 
to reflect the ideas which Colonel Du Paty de Clam had previously ex- 
pressed to the prisoner, point out that, although Du Paty de Clam main- 
tained the contrary, it was certain that imagination had played a much 
greater part than reason in his acts. It was also significant, counsel said, 
that the report drawn up by Du Paty de Clam on the day following his 
interview with Dreyfus had disappeared. Du Paty de Clam, counsel inti- 
mated, had evidently forgotten his remarks to Dreyfus, as he had forgot- 
ten other facts. 

M. Demange then said that he was surprised at the attitude of General 
Gonse toward the alleged confessions, and marvelled at the fact that Cap- 
tain Lebrun-Eenault, who was sent to the Elyst^e palace expressly to re- 
peat the confessions, did not mention them. It was likewise inexplicable 
that General Saussier and General Mercier took no steps to verify the so- 
called confessions, which were lost sight of until M. Cavaignac, as Minis- 
ter of War, sprung them upon the Chamber of Deputies as proof of the 
guilt of Dreyfus. The Court of Cassation, the lawyer also said, had justly 
decided that they were not confessions. 

Discussing the secret dossier, M. Demange examined the documents 
one after the other. He said that all interpretations of the document 
commencing "doubt proof" were hypothetical, but they applied much 
more easily to Esterhazy than to Dreyfus. It was so with the other docu- 
ments. There was nothing to indicate that Dreyfus was concerned any 
more than any one else. The leakage ascribed to Dreyfus could only refer 
to the plans of fortresses, and this leakage continued until 1897. 

The document containing the words "Cette canaille de D ," 

according to M. Demange, only indicated a "poor devil," and could not be 
ascribed to a man whom another letter described as a friend in the Second 


Bureau. No credence could be attached to some of the documents, while 
others were wholly inapplicable to the prisoner. 

Counsel said the sixth document was a letter written from Germany 
by Count von Muuster-Ledenburg, the German Ambassador to France, to 
Colonel Schwartzkoppen, the military attache of Germany at Paris, con- 
taining the words, "As regards Dreyfus, we are easy." M. Demange 
pointed out that the Dreyfus case was the universal topic of discussion 
in Germany at the time, and at first the German officials might have 
been uneasy, but had evidently reassured themselves. 

M. Demange was indignant at the fact that, because Count von Mun- 
ster-Ledenburg had not expressly declared Dreyfus was innocent, the pros- 
ecution should have deduced from his words an avowal of his guilt. 

Eeferring to the letters of November 2d and November 11th, sent by 
Major Panizzardi to his chief, it had been alleged that they proved that 
Dreyfus had relations with Colonel Schwartzkoppen, whereas in reality 
Major Panizzardi merely denied that Dreyfus had any relations with 
Italy. It was impossible to doubt the authenticity of these facts. It 
was incredible that Colonel Schwartzkoppen ar^l Major Panizzardi de- 
ceived their governments. The omission of Esterhazy's name from these 
letters was intentional. 

In concluding his examination of the secret dossier, M. Demange re- 
marked that he felt compelled to refer to these documents emanating from 
foreigners, as General Mercier relied upon them to support the guilt of 
Dreyfus. The statements of the military attaches, that they had no rela- 
tions with Dreyfus, had been confirmed by the statement of the Minister 
of State in the Reichstag, who could not have been deceived by his attach^ 
at Paris. 

"I have finished," then said M. Demange, "my examination of the se- 
cret dossier. All France knows the worthlessness of its contents. Yet, 
it is owing to it that the country has been distracted for months, and it 
has been thought that there were documents and proofs in it which might 
bring France to blows with a neighboring power. Y^ou are now acquaint- 
ed with it. The secret dossier has been exploded. Y"ou will pardon me 
the loss of time I have imposed upon you. I will now take up the cir- 
cumstantial evidence." 

M. Demange then discussed the circunjatantial evidence adduqed in 


1894. He said the perturbation of Dreyfus at the dictation scene had 
nothing to do with producing the idea of guilt in the minds of those pres- 
ent. Colonel Du Paty de Clam, M. Cochefert, chief of detectives, and 
Major Gribelin were all convinced beforehand of his guilt as a result of 
evidence which they considered unimpeachable; so much so that they 
wished Dreyfus to blow his brains out, but Dreyfus declined because he 
was innocent. 

Continuing, counsel for the defence successively showed the hollow- 
ness of the stories of Mathieu Dreyfus's attempt to corrupt Colonel Sand- 
herr, the late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's theatrical denunciation of Drey- 
fus as a traitor au the court-martial of 1894, and the reports of the detec- 
tives. He pointed out how the prosecution had advanced as proof the 
alleged statements of individuals, who were not in the pay of the War 
Office, but whom they carefully abstained from producing for examination ; 
especially dwelling upon Henry's statement in 1894 — which has since been 
admitted to be false — that a certain War Office employee informed him 
that Dreyfus was the culprit. 

M. Demange then showed the emptiness of the gambling and libertine 
charges against the prisoner, and said that the simplest actions of Dreyfus 
were misconstrued, even his legitimate desire to obtain knowledge being 
imputed as a crime. 

After demonstrating the falsity of the testimony of M. de Beaure- 
paire's witnesses, Mueller, Dubreuil, Villon, and Cernuschi, counsel said 
that the only proof left was the bordereau. Who could have sent it? 
Who wrote it? Complete light could only be shed on it by the produc- 
tion of the notes enumerated in the bordereau. This had been said by 
General Zurlinden himself. But counsel asked the court to remember, 
with reference to those notes, that all General Deloye could say was that 
it was not impossible that Dreyfus might have possessed them. This 
was all he could say when it was a question of high treason. M. De- 
mange added: 

"You will find this phrase in the mouth of a witness entitled to your 
entire respect, and it is upon the strength of such a statement that Drey- 
fus is to be proved guilty. I will not attempt to obtain such light on the 
documents, but since theories have been promulgated I will suggest one. 
I will seek to show that you must put aside even the technical value of 


the bordereau and tlie last effort cf the prosecution. I will seek to com. 
bat the circumstantial evidence it has invoked." 

At this point M. Demange paused to announce that he would need 
another two hours and a half to finish his plea, and as it was then already 
eleven o'clock the court adjourned until 7:30 A.M., September 9th, thus 
fixing the opening of the court of that day an hour later than usual. 

The general impression formed was that the speech of M. Demange 
must have had a certain effect on the judges, as it was a strong effort ar- 

Great interest was aroused during the day by the arrival at Eennes of 
Max Eegis, the ex-mayor of Algiers, the notorious Jew-baiter, He was 
attended by a couple of Algerians in native costume, and a crowd of peo- 
ple followed him about. He stopped to take some refreshment at the 
principal caf^, and the place was immediately invaded by a gaping crowd. 
M. Eegis was present in the court-yard of the Lyc^e during the morning, 
and discussed the situation with the leading anti-Dreyfusards. His pres- 
ence was not considered a good omen for the peace of the town. 

The local papers published an open letter from M. E'egis to the Premier, 
M. Waldeck-Eousseau, declaring that he, M. Eegis, intended to preserve 
the greatest calm, but adding that if an attempt was made to arrest him 
he would resist. 


Chapter LIL 


When Eennes awoke on September 9th, the appearance of the streets 
left no doubt that the final crisis of the great trial had been reached. The 
whole town bristled with soldiers ; all the streets near the court were 
guarded at intervals by double lines of infantry ; two companies of infan- 
try sat on the church steps adjoining the Lyc(5e, with their arms stacked 
in front of them, while in the courtyard of the prison and at various 
other points cavalry could be seen in readiness. Every one entering the 
court was subjected to the closest scrutiny. Even the few women who 
attended the session were deprived of their small sunshades before being 
permitted to pass.- 

A larger crowd than usual witnessed the passage of Dreyfus from the 
prison to the Lyc^e. But the crowds were nowhere large, and, aside 
from the presence of the military, the town was as tranquil as usual. 

The prisoner looked flushed and in ill health, apparently suffering from 
the great strain. 

M. Demange resumed his speech for the defence, which was interrupt- 
ed on September 8th by the adjournment of the court. The audience 
listened to his remarks with the most serious attention, and he was also 
closely followed by the judges. In his appeal to them he strongly ac- 
centuated the words : " Why, you must not say a thing is possible. A 
judge must have proof. No doubt must rest on the conscience of a judge." 

In the second row of the privileged public, facing the judges, sat 
Mathieu Dreyfus, brother of the prisoner, whose sunken eyes and careworn 
face reflected his anxiety and anguish. It was evident that he had not 
slept during the night. 

The prisoner sat behind a captain of gendarmes, and as M. Demange 
refuted the arguments made in the speech of the Government Commissary, 
Major Carriere, the prisoner continually turned his face toward Mathieu, 


to watch the effect it had upon him. Dreyfus, however, did not display 
the intense emotion with which his heart, on this critical morning, must 
have been bursting. 

Gendarmes were plentifully sown among the audience, and w^ere posted 
in the gangways around the court-room. There was a pleasant contrast 
in their pretty blue uniforms with white cord trimmings, to the sober 
attire of the majority of the spectators. They kept their eyes roaming over 
the court, and their hands rested on the black leather cases in which nes- 
tled big army revolvers. 

The silence was only broken by the occasional rustling of a reporter's 
notebook, or the neigh of an artillery horse picketed in a street beside the 
LycSe. Now and then there was the sound of the rattling of a rifle or the 
clanking of the sword of some officer hastily crossing the court-yard where 
the troops were stationed. 

The peroration of M. Demange was a splendid piece of oratory. His 
voice thundered through the court, echoed outside, and the officers and 
troopers stationed in the court-yard crowded around the entrance hall, 
standing on tiptoe to catch a glimpse of the speaker, while inside the hall 
many of the audience were moved to tears. 

The speech was very skilfully arranged, and was devoted to demolish- 
ing stone by stone the arguments of the prosecution. Counsel began by 
saying : 

"When yesterday's (September 8th) sitting was ended I was about to 
deal with what is called the direct evidence, namely, the technical value 
of the bordereau. The prosecution, by taking separately each of the notes 
containing information supplied by the writer of the bordereau, deduced 
the opinion that he alone could have communicated information of the 
documents. If he had in his possession proof of this, he should have given 
it. It devolved upon the Public Prosecutor to prove that Dreyfus pos- 
sessed this information, and nobody but he. That is how the question 
must be put. We are before a court of justice, in which suppositions have 
no place. In order to produce proof, I must ask, and we must know, what 
was the information supplied. Consequently, we must have the notes de- 
livered. Otherwise we have to deal with a hypothesis. That is my first 
objection, to which I challenge the Public Prosecutor to reply." 

M. Demange, remarking that the hypothesis accepted in 1894 could 


not now be maiutainbJ, proceeded minutely to examine the theories of the 
Headquarters Staff, especially General Eoget's, whose arguments he refu- 
ted seriatim. He similarly analyzed the evidence of General Mercier, 
reiterating the arguments as to the utter improbability of an artilleryman 
employing the incorrect terms used in the bordereau in connection with 
artillery matters. 

He then reviewed the well-known facts in the case, showing that Col- 
onel Schwartzkoppen, the German military attach^ at Paris, supplied 
information to his government, years before, regarding the " 120-short " 
field-gun. He said that only the internal construction of the brake of this 
gun remained secret, but Dreyfus knew nothing about it, and never asked 
for information on the subject from the few officers knowing it. There- 
fore, counsel contended, Dreyfus could not have betrayed this secret. 

Eegarding the practical tests of the gun, M. Demange continued, Drey- 
fus was similarly ignorant. General Mercier's statement that Dreyfus 
attended the trials could be dismissed, as it had been proved that the 
only leakage resulting from those trials had been furnished by the spy 
Grenier. It was tlius apparent into what error all the witnesses support- 
ing the prosecution had fallen. Their opinions had been imperfectly 
formed, and the judges must be on their guard against it, honest and sin- 
cere as it doubtless was. 

After refuting the imputations against Dreyfus based on the I'iring 
Manual, which he said were purely hpyothetical, M. Demange continued, 
emphatically : 

"The prosecution has no right to rest content with hypothesis. We 
are in a court of justice. The defence alone has the right to say it is pos- 
sible or not possible. As General Deloye declared, it is the duty of the 
Public Prosecutor to produce evidence. But he had adduced none against 

After showing that the prisoner had never seen the " 120-short " field- 
gun fired, counsel read letters from Esterhazy proving that the latter at- 
tended the Chalons camp, and probably attended the trials. 

"But the prosecution," M. Demange added, "has not to choose between 
Dreyfus and Esterhazy. It has only to prove Dreyfus guilty, and could 
not do so. On the contrary, we have shown that Dreyfus did not possess 
the documents communicated nor the information contained in them." 


Dealing with the note referring to the covering of troops, M. Demange 
pointed out General Mercier's change of front on this subject. In 1894 
the general contended that it was in reference to the commands of these 
troops that the leakage occurred, while he now asserted that it was regard- 
ing the mobilization and transport of the troops. The prosecution had 
thus advanced two versions, which must cause the judges terrible search- 
ings of conscience, especially as no proofs had been furnished. What right 
had the prosecution to advance statements without corroboration? Coun- 
sel put it to the conscience of the judges, and he had asked this of Gene- 
ral Mercier himself. 

Continuing to plead with great warmth and eloquence, and with clear, 
closely reasoned arguments, which were followed with breathless interest 
by the entire audience, M. Demange declared that he did not believe in 
the complicity of Henry and Esterhazy, for Henry was honorable and loyal. 
If he had been the accomplice of Esterhazy, Henry would have destroyed 
the bordereau. Possibly Henry had inadvertently divulged information 
to Esterhazy, under the impression that he was conversing with an hon- 
orable, straightforward man like himself, and, discovering in 1898 that he 
had placed his hand in a traitor's, he committed a crime upon which 
counsel declined to enlarge, since the perpetrator had already paid for it 
with his life. What other explanation could be given of the suicide of 
this man, with whom the whole army sympathized ? Even after the dis- 
covery of the crime Henry had spoken of scoundrels. Was one of these 
not Esterhazy and the other Weil, the latter having unconsciously betrayed 
information? General Saussier had every confidence in Henry's loyalty, 
and Esterhazy might have received information from Henry or Weil, who 
were unconscious informers. 

A loyal soldier. General Billot, had moreover said that the traitor was 
not alone. In his mind he connected the names of Esterhazy and Drey- 
fus. Counsel did not profess to clear up the matter, but he wished it to 
be cleared up. It must be proved that Dreyfus knew Esterhazy and Weil. 
M. Demange did not fear whatever light could be thrown on the case. 
Three men were in the Intelligence Department — Henry, Esterhazy, and 
Weil. Esterhazy had even placed the others under pecuniary obligations, 
and all these were closely bound together. 

Replying to tho hypothesis deduced in the note relating to the modifi- 


^ ^hs^ 

^ -^ -:ais3':Sfer»v. 


■Xi< J 



cation of the artillery, M, Demange pointed out that the information could 
have been obtained by Esterhazy at the Chalons camp, while, regarding 
the Madagascar note, Dreyfus had n^ver had possession of it, though one 
of his most bitter prosecutors. Colonel Du Paty de Clam, had it in his 

Eetuming to the Firing Manual, counsel showed how Esterhazy se- 
cured a copy of it, and pointed to the fact that his government had asked 
Colonel Schwartzkoppen for supplementary information, which showed 
that the original intelligence was incomplete, and supplied by an in- 
competent person, not an artilleryman. The memorandum to Colonel 
Schwartzkoppen asked for the Firing Manual, which must, therefore, have 
been offered, and to the graduation bar, which Esterhazy had obtained from 
a friend and kept. 

Had all these proofs existed against Dreyfus, how strong would hava 
been the case for the prosecution ! But their hypotheses were not even 
probable, while the theories of the defence were all supported by docu- 
ments culled from the secret dossier. 

Dealing with the last line of the bordereau, " I am going to the man- 
oeuvres," counsel produced a note, written by Dreyfus, proving that he 
knew in May, 1894, that he would not attend the manoeuvres with his 

Counsel dwelt upon the importance of the fact that the probationers 
absolutely knew they would not attend the manoeuvres, though certain 
individuals cherished the hope that exceptions might be made in their 
favor. Only one actually applied to General de Boisdeffre for permission, 
but the latter did not promise anything. M. Demange protested against 
the Government Commissioner's assertion that it had been agreed that the 
probationers should attend the manoeuvres as officers of the Headquarters 
Staff, and said he wished to know if Major Carriere adhered to his state- 
ment on the subject. 

Major Carriere recalled that General de Boisdeffre had declared that 
he had promised to do his best to satisfy the probationers. 

M. Demange — And you call that an agreement? 

Major Carriere — Certainly. 

M. Demange — Then we do not agree as to the meaning of the word 

in the French language. 


Continuing, M. Demange exclaimed: 

" Hear what the author of the bordereau writes : ' I am going to the 
manoeuvres.' Is that only a belief? Isn't it rather a certainty? Well, 
gentlemen, I have shown you that Dreyfus could not have written that. 
On the contrary, Esterhazy's regiment w^as at the manoeuvres, regarding 
which information was supplied. Was Esterhazy there? I do not know. 
But what is certain is that Dreyfus, if he was the author of the bordereau, 
could not have written at the end of August: ' I am going to the ma- 
noeuvres,' since he knew the probationers were not going. I think I have 
shown that when all the points of the accusation are examined they van- 
ish. So much for the technical value of the bordereau. I have argued 
foot by foot with my honorable friends on the other side, and I have 
shown the fallacy of the mental process whereby they reached the point 
that they were able to affirm on their soul and conscience that Dreyfus 
was guilty, I might thex^fore say with pride that I have demolished the 
case of the prosecution. But I am not entitled to do so. I merely say 
to the court, be careful. You must be certain, and before you can say 
Dreyfus is guilty you must, on your souls and consciences, be able to de- 
clare that there is no doubt that no one but he had the documents enu- 
merated in the bordereau. But you do not know what the documents are. 
That is my last word on this portion of the case. I have now to deal 
with the material evidence." 

Counsel next dissected the handwriting evidence, and reminded the 
court of the groans with which M. Scheurer-Kestner was greeted when he 
displayed the handw-riting of Esterhazy in the tribune of the Senate. 

" 'Is that all you have? ' disdainfully asked the Senators. To-day the 
prosecution has no more." 

Eeferring to M. Bertillon, M. Demange said he did not understand his 
conclusions. "He produced in court a monumental work," said the law- 
yer, " But I am convinced, and hope to prove, that M. Bertillon's system 
is false. But, I must do him the justice of saying that when the Prefect 
of Police applied to M. Bertillon he appealed to a man of genius who, by 
the creation of the Anthropometric Department, conferred upon society an 
inestimable benefit. Still, I can only say, ' You have fallen into error 
which may be fatal to an innocent man.' " 

Proceeding, M. Demange demolished M. Bertillon's theories, dealing 


at great length with the different contentions, admitting that some of them 
might content certain scientific minds. But, lie added, it must not be for- 
gotten that genius had a dangerous neighbor. It did not do to have too 
much genius, and M. Bertillon's work was liable to land the judges in se- 
rious error. The statements of scientists, the evidence of common sense, 
and the declarations of M. Bertillon himself showed that the experts had 
not proved the guilt of Dreyfus. If the handwriting of the bordereau was 
disguised, how could Dreyfus's exclamation, "This handwriting has a 
frightful resemblance to mine," be explained? 

Counsel said he was convinced that the bordereau was written, in his 
natural hand, by Esterhazy. The paper on which it was written also con- 
demned Esterhazy. 

M. Demange next examined at length the theory that Esterhazy was 
a straw-man, and showed this was rendered quite untenable by every ac- 
tion of Colonel Picquart, who was accused of trying to effect the substitu- 
tion. How, if Esterhazy was a straw-man, could he have lost his head 
at the moment of his arrest to such an extent that he contemplated sui- 
cide? The lawyer contrasted the lives of Dreyfus and Esterhazy, saying 
there was nothing but idle tales against the former, while the latter was 
always in search of a five-franc piece, "V^Tien the time arrived for the 
judges to say whether the bordereau was in the handwriting of Dreyfus, 
tliey would have to remember that all the experts admitted that it was 
not, while all of them admitted that it showed traces of Esterhazy's 
handwriting. They would also have to compare the demeanor of Drey- 
fus during the past five years with the demeanor of Esterhazy to-day : 
One, on Devil's Island, constantly turning his eyes toward France and 
appealing to General de Boisdeffre against his conviction, demanding only 
justice ; the other full of recriminations and bitter abuse, writing insulting 
letters to the generals. 

M. Demange, after reverting briefly to the charges in connection with 
the Eobin shell, protested against General Mercier's refusal to discuss 
motives, as being merely a psychological question, while it was in 
reality a question of common sense. There was an entire lack of mo- 
tive in the case of Dreyfus, while there was every motive upon the 
part of Esterhazy. Dreyfus was rich and happy, he had two children 
who were his pride and joy, and a wife of whose devoted courage all 


were aware — everything a man could desire. Why should he have 
risked all that? 

"Believe me," added M. Demange, "my conviction comes from an 
honest heart. I am convinced that the judges, with the doubt which 
will remain in their minds, will find it impossible to declare the prisoner 
guilty, for they will rather turn their eyes to the men hiding on the other 
side of the Channel. I ask you once more whether the noble, dignified 
bearing of the prisoner since 1894 is not that of an honest, loyal soldier? " 

After this, M. Demange, with his voice broken with emotion, tears 
streaming down his face, and hands trembling, concluded his brilliant 
flight of oratory. 

"Ah, gentlemen," said he, "I must now close in order to restore you 
to your well-earned repose, for I have now been addressing you for two 
days. But, there is one thing which detains me. When I have finished, 
the last word of the defence will have been said, and you will go to your 
private room to consider your verdict. Once there, what are you going 
to ask yourselves ? If Dreyfus is innocent? That is not the point. But 
is he guilty ? You will ask yourselves, ' Are we going to say he sent 
these documents when we do not even know what they contain ? ' and 
when you say to yourselves, after having heard that the defence is power- 
less, it is true, to throw complete light on the matter — but, believe me, 
speaking from sincere, honest conviction, we do not know what he sent. 
Another may have given these documents ; but he, no, no ! These were 
things he could not have given — " when you say to yourselves further that 
this writing is not his, when you say to yourselves that there is over there 
on the other side of the Channel a man of whom we have to say, ' It is 
he,' — will there be, gentlemen, no doubt in your minds? That doubt will 
be sufficient for me. That doubt will mean his acquittal. It will not 
permit honest, logical consciences to say this man is guilty. Very well, 
gentlemen, I ask only one thing, and that is that at this moment you cast 
one more backward glance. Remember what the prisoner was on Devil's 
Island. Remember how, for five years, this man, in spite of the most 
horrible sufferings, notwithstanding the most cruel torture, was never for 
a single moment alone, a guard with him night and day, and never allowed 
to exchange a syllable with a fellow- creature, I am not speaking of the 
torture of his being placed in irons j I am speaking of the terrible mental 


torture to which he was subjected. Well, gentlemen, the spirit wkich 
these sufferings, these tortures could not curb, that spirit which remained 
proud and high, I ask you, is it the spirit of a traitor? I ask you if it is 
not that of a loyal, tried soldier? I ask if the man who only lived for his 
children, that they may bear an honored name, this man here who has the 
cult of honor in his family, I ask if you can believe him to be a villain 
and a traitor to his motherland ? No, I have no need to proclaim his in- 
nocence. I say your verdict will not be a verdict of guilty, for you have 
been enlightened. The judges of 1894 had not been so enlightened. They 
have not before them Esterhazy's writing. But you had it. That is the 
conducting wire, as God has permitted you, gentlemen, to have it. 

" My task is now accomplished. It is for you to do yours. I pray 
God," exclaimed counsel, lifting his arms toward Heaven — "I pray God 
that you will restore to our France the concord of which she had so much 
need ! " Then, turning to the audience, in which every eye was fixed upon 
him, M. Demange added, in conclusion: 

"As to you, whoever you may be. Frenchmen, be you with me or 
against me, finding inspiration in the sublime idea of M. Mornaud before 
the Court of Cassation, I say to all, we are Frenchmen. Let us then be 
united in the common sentiment of love of country, love of justice, and 
love of the army." 

As he reached this climax, the counsel's voice swelled like the tones 
of an organ, and the close of his impassioned peroration was followed by 
an outburst of applause, which was immediately suppressed by the presi- 

M. Labori then said he did not desire to speak. 

Major Carriere, however, claimed the right to reply. 

When the court resumed its session after a brief adjournment, the 
Government Commissary began his reply. He promised to be brief, and 
said he desired to submit to the court-martial a simple observation : 

" Weigh the importance of the two categories of witnesses, those for 
and those against the prisoner. Weigh their importance, and judge, in all 
the independence of your character and all the strength of soldiers. Proof 
is everywhere. The hour of supreme decision has sounded. France 
anxiously awaits your judgment. I also await it, confidently and fully 
maintaining the conclusions already annouoced, I demand the applica- 


tion of Article 76 of the Penal Code and Article 267 of the Military 

The demand of the Government Commissary caused a sensation in 

M. Demange rose to reply, with his voice hoarse from fatigue. He 

" The Government Commissioner, in reminding you of the text of the 
law, has also reminded us of what we already knew — namely, that you 
are only answerable to your consciences and God for your verdict. This 
is my last word in this case. I feel that as men of honor and loyalty 
and as military judges you will never admit as proofs the hypotheses and 
presumptions advanced here; consequently my last word is the samel 
spoke this morning. I have confidence in you because you are soldiers." 

Colonel Jouaust, president of the court, asked Dreyfus if he had any- 
thing to add in his behalf. The prisoner rose, and in a voice choked with 
emotion declared he had only one thing to say, but of that he was per- 
fectly assured. He said : 

" I affirm before my country and before the army that I am innocent. 
My sole aim has been to save the honor of my name, the name borne by 
my children. I have suffered five years of the most awful torture. But, 
to-day, at last, I feel assured that I am about to attain my desire, through 
your loyalty and justice." 

Colonel Jouaust — Have you finished, Dreyfus? 

Dreyfus — Yes, Mr. President. 

The court then retired to deliberate, and the prisoner left the hall, 
never to return, as, in accordance with the law, the verdict was rendered 
in his absence. 

After about two hours' deliberation, the court, by a vote of five to two, 
found the prisoner "guilty, with extenuating circumstances," and sentenced 
him to ten years' detention. 

The text of the judgment was as follows : 

"To-day, the 9th of September, 1899, the court-martial of the Tenth 
Legion Army Corps, deliberating behind closed doors, the president put 
the following question : 

"' Ls Alfred Dreyfus, brevet captain Fourteenth Regiment of Artillery, 
probationer on the General Staff, guilty of having in 1894 entered into 


machinations or held relations with a foreign power, or one of its agents, 
to induce it to commit hostility or undertake war against France, or pro- 
cure it the means therefor, by delivering the notes and documents men- 
tioned in the document called the bordereau, according to the decision of 
the Court of Cassation of June 3, 1899? 

" The votes were taken separately, beginning by the inferior grade and 
youngest in the last grade, the president giving his opinion last. 

"The court declares on the question, by a majority of five votes to two, 
'Yes,' the accused is guilty. 

" The majority agreed that there are extenuating circumstances, in 
consequence of which and on the request of the commissary of the Gov- 
ernment, the president put the question and received again the votes in 
the above-mentioned form. 

"As a result, the court condemns, by a majority of five votes to two, 
Alfred Dreyfus to the pimishment of ten years' detention." 

The judgment then quotes the Code and the Constitution under which 
the sentence was delivered, with the article of the law enjoining the Gov- 
ernment Commissary to have the judgment immediately read in the pres- 
ence of the prisoner, before the assembled guard, under arms, and to notify 
him that the law allowed a delay of twenty-four hours in which to lodge 
an appeal. 

The silence w^as immediately broken by a rush of the reporters to drop 
their previously prepared telegrams into the letter-box in the street, where 
a gendarme received them and gave them to the respective messengers for 
transmission by wire. 

The noise called forth a stem cry of " Silence ! " and again all sound 
was hushed until Colonel Jouaust finished speaking. He concluded by 
saying the court would remain sitting until the room was cleared. He 
asked the audience to go out quietly and not to raise a shout of any sort. 

The gendarmes then closed around the audience and pressed them out- 
side. Not a cry or a word was raised by any one. Everything passed off 
with complete calm. 

As the people emerged the gendarmes kept them moving away from 
the court. The small crowd outside cheered. 

The pent-up feelings of the audience were expressed in a long, deep- 
drawn "Oh!" when Colonel Jouaust reached the word "guilty." -The 


■vford was pronounced under his breath. Owing to the threat of vigorous 
punishment for uttering any cry there was no outburst, but the faces of the 
uiajority of the spectators reflected an expression of anguished surprise, 

^laitre Labori heard the verdict with a pallid visage, while Maitre 
Demange fell back in a chair as though horror-stricken. Colonel Jouaust 
read the judgment without a tremor of his voice and apparently unmoved. 

After the verdict M. Demange said : 

" Terrible ! Unbelievable ! It was the most awful shock I ever received 
in my life. I am trying to put myself in those men's places and view 
the problem as they did. Try as I may, I cannot grasp how they reasoned 
it out." 

" It is as I expected," said M. Labori. " I was convinced from the first 
that we were dealing with an unconscionable set, and I handled them ac- 
cordingly. My views were not fully supported, and I consented to yield. 
Now it is not for me to speak. The fight was not carried on as it would 
have been if I had been in full charge. 

" Now we must bend all our energy to secure a reversal and obtain a 
new revision. I am leaving with M. Demange at twelve to-night to pre- 
sent an appeal in Paris. Monira alone stays here to get the signature of 
Dreyfus on certain papers." 

Zola telegraphed to M. Labori, saying: 

"You were right, we were wrong. Your plan of making this crime 
impossible by disqualifying thoroughly all the military witnesses showed 
you had penetrated tham more than we. Henceforth count me as a most 
determined partisan for a vigorous fight, and no mercy to the foe when we 
have him down. From this day I re-enter the arena, never again to 
leave it." 

M. Clemenceau also telegraphed to M. Labori. He said: 

" Congratulations, nevertheless. You know what I think and how I 
feel now. \Ye must never rest till the five men now branded before an 
offended world are securely lodged in a penitentiary for wilful abuse of 
sacred laws trusted to their hands." 

Max Nordau said : 

"No words would fitly express my indignation." 

M. Jaures, the Socialist leader, said : 

"Military tribunals must be abolished, and will be. They are a sur- 


vival of mediaeval prejudices. Ail citizens must be equal before the law. 
The danger of allowing oae caste to consider itself separate from the rest 
of the nation and above common law was vividly exemplified in to-day's 
monstrous decision." 

Octave Mirabeau said : 

" This marks the beginning of a protracted political convulsion. Either 
we shall sink to the insignificance of Spain or rid our country of the cleri- 
cal obscurantism which does not pervade the army alone, but a large por- 
tion of our people." 

M. Marcel Prevost, the able correspondent at Eennes of the New York 
Herald, cabled to his paper: 

"Dreyfus is condemned. You will read the new conditions of the 
sentence he has to undergo. They extenuate a little the rigor of his 
former judgment. But he is condemned. He is going to be degraded once 

" This sentence was received with death-like stupor. Alas ! for sev- 
eral days I have foreseen it only too clearly, but my conscience refused 
to believe it possible. 

" Don't ask me for any comment on such an event as this. My heart 
as a man and a Frenchman is too full of grief. It seems to me as if my 
country had just heard a condemnation pronounced upon it." 

Counsel for Dreyfus immediately prepared an appeal, which the pris- 
oner signed at noon, September 10th. 

After the verdict the health of the prisoner failed steadily, and it was 
said he was only able to take the very lightest nourishment, eggs and 
milk. But, sustained by the loving and wise counsels of his wife, who 
was allowed to see him in prison daily, Dreyfus bore up, and his friends 
continued their efforts in his behalf. 

On September 19th, it was announced from Paris that the Council of 
Ministers had decided to pardon Dreyfus "in principle," and that the par- 
don would take effect a few days later. It was also announced that Drey- 
fus had relinquished his appeal for a reversal of the judgment of the court- 
martial. This was in accordance with the advice of his friends, who 
were anxious to secure his release, almost at any cost, in view of his fail- 
ing health. But, it was added, this did not by any means indicate that 
the efforts to establish clearly the innocence of Dreyfus, and find the 


really guilty man, would be abandoned. On the contrary, it was said that 
the search for the real culprit would be continued until Dreyfus was 
cleared of all suspicion of treason. 

Dreyfus was released from his prison at Eennes at three o'clock on 
the morning of September 20th, and proceeded to Vern, with his faithful 
brother, Mathieu Dreyfus, where he took a train bound for Nantes. At 
Nantes the two brothers took a train for Bordeaux and Carpentras, in the 
department of Vaucluse, sixteen miles northeast of Avignon, where he 
took up his residence at the home of his brother-in-law, M. Valabregue, a 
well-known cloth-merchant, who has been established there for over a 
quarter of a century. There was no demonstration at Carpentras when 
Dreyfus arrived there. 

Carpentras is situated on the Eiver Auzon, in a fertile district at the 
foot of Mont Ventoux. The town is surrounded by walls, flanked by 
towers, and has four gates. Outside the walls is a broad esplanade planted 
with trees. In 1313 Pope Clement Y. fixed his residence there, and made 
it the seat of the Pontifical See. The present walls were built by Pope 
Innocent VI., fifty years after that event. The principal public buildings 
of Carpentras are the cathedral, a Gothic edifice; a museum, the Porte 
d'Orange; the Palace of Justice; a Pioman triumphal arch; the hospital, 
erected in 1751; the theatre, prisons, and a library containing 25,000 vol- 
umes, 6,000 medals, and various antiquities. The aqueduct, a massive 
structure which crosses the valley of the Auzon by forty-eight arches, 
was finished in 1734. Carpentras has a population of about 10,000 

When Dreyfus first met his children, on September 23d, the Saturday 
after his arrival at Carpentras, the liberated man stood outside the garden 
at the end of the carriage drive leading to the Valabregue villa. On see- 
ing him his little boy and girl, Pierre and Jeanne, jumped out of the car- 
riage which was bringing them, with their grandparents, M. and Mme. 
Hadamard, from the railway station whence they had arrived from Paris, 
and ran toward their father. Pressing them both in his arms, Dreyfus 
kissed them passionately, and pressed them again and again to his heart, 
tears of joy coursing down his face as he did so. He was overwhelmed 
with emotion and unable to speak a single word. This first interview 
with his children, after five years' separation, affected him so deeply that 


he remained completely prostrated with nervous exhaustion during the 
rest of the day. 

Of course the verdict of the court-martial alone practically established 
the fact that the charges against Dreyfus had not been proved, therefore 
the light sentence and the rider of "extenuating circumstances." This 
was confirmed by the action of the Cabinet Council in deciding to pardon 
the prisoner. Dreyfus, although condemned, was, to all intents and pur- 
poses, shown not to have been guilty as charged. 

The future efforts in behalf of this seeming martyr and apparent vic- 
tim of French military incompetency will be watched with the greatest 
interest throughout the world. 

It is sad to add that, on the very day it was announced from Paris thafc 
the prisoner was to be pardoned, there came at exactly the same hour an- 
other despatch from the French capital saying that M. Scheurer-Kestner, 
the former Vice-President of the Senate and great champion of the cause 
of Dreyfus, was dead. He had been suffering from typhoid fever for 
some days previously, and expired without the consolation of knowing 
that his great work had triumphed. 

Dreyfus was deeply grieved when informed of the death of his cham- 
pion, M. Scheurer-Kestner. He was especially grieved that M. Scheurer- 
Kestner did not live long enough to receive his thanks. One of Dreyfus's 
first acts after he was freed was to order a wreath for M. Scheurer-Kestner's 

Dreyfus wrote the following letter to M. Marcelin Pellet, son-in-law 
of M. Scheurer-Kestner, on September 21st: 

Sir : — My first thought immediately after my liberation was for M. 
Scheurer-Kestner. What, therefore, was my profound grief on learning 
yesterday en route the great sorrow which has befallen you. I was impa- 
tiently awaiting the moment when I should be able to pay to M. Scheurer- 
Kestner the respectful homage of my admiration for his character, his 
loyalty, the generous ardor with which he took in hand the cause of an 
Alsatian innocent of the abominable crime for which he had been con- 
demned. I beg you to be so kind to express this homage to all the mem- 
bers of his family, and to assure them how deeply I share with them their 
affliction. I shall never forget all I owe to M. Scheurer-Kestner. I shall 
teach my children that if honor has been rendered to their father it is 


thanks to his admirable devotion, and I shall teach them to love and reii' 
erate his memory. 

Also the same day and about the same hour came a trumpet note from 
Cardinal Vaughan, the great English prelate, who, in a public letter on 
the Dreyfus case, published in London, said the Eoman Catholic Church 
condemned the persecution of the Jews and of every other race. He 
added : 

If Jews or Christians practise usury and extortion, or do any other 
hurtful thing, let laws be passed, not against Jews, but against the mal- 
practices complained of, and let the law strike Jew or Gentile with equal 

It is unjust to identify the Catholic Church with the act of injustice, 
whereby Dreyfus was condemned at Eennes without clear evidence of his 
guilt. The case has been, from beginning to end, a state affair of military 
interest and of state treason, in which the Church has had no place. 

I do not wish one word I write to be taken as an approval of the 
Eennes verdict. On the contrary, I share the indignation expressed 
against it, because it was unjustified by the evidence, and it is within the 
right of any man in any country to say that upon the evidence before him 
the verdict is infamous; but, having denounced the judgment pronounced 
by the officers, it is simply monstrous that foreigners should at once rush 
in and, before the judgment has been considered by the supreme authori- 
ties of the state, denounce the whole nation as savages. 

The Figaro said : " Dreyfus will devote the rest of his life to the re- 
covery of his honor. He is afraid, however, that he will die before this 
can be accomplished." 

Mme. Dreyfus received hundreds of telegrams of congratulations on 
her husband's pardon. Most of these messages came from Great Britain 
and the United States. 

The anti-Dreyfus newspapers were frantic over the prisoner's pardon. 

The Eclair said it had hopes that the country would be spared this 

The Gaulois said " Nothing can justify the pardon. Public opinion 
may not understand it, bub the army will^ for it had its revenge at 


The Journal said : " Dreyfus is a traitor, and his pardon will not alter 
that fact." 

The Intransigcant said it proved that "if Dreyfus was a traitor Presi- 
den Loubet was another." 

The Petit Journal remarked that it is merely a sop to the " Triple 
Alliance Syndicate," 

The Aurore said the Government has shown its "horror at the denial 
of justice by the Eennes court-martial." 

The Eclair stated that a monster petition from Jewish people, headed 
with the names of the Eothschilds, had been presented to President Loubet 
asking for Dreyfus's rehabilitation. 


Chapter LIIL 


The announcement of the second verdict in the Dreyfus case caused 
a wave of indignation to sweep around the world. 

Paris heard the news calmly. But the general opinion was that it 
was only the end of another chapter in the history of this famous case, and 
that the bitter fight would be continued. 

M. Drumont, in the Libre Parole, said the members of the court-martial 
presented a beautiful spectacle. They are w^arriors, without fear and 
without reproach. Nothing could disturb them, neither outrages nor flat- 
teries which were still more insulting. Nor did the Government's black- 
mail succeed in extracting by force the acquittal of the most flagrant of 

The Petit Journal said : " The guilty officer struck down tries to con- 
tinue the agitation despite his promises to respect the court-martial's 
verdict. " 

The Croix declared that the verdict confirmed France's military justice. 
It was dealt without fear or favor, and without passion except such as was 
inspired by justice. 

The Courier du Soir demanded that everybody accept the verdict. It 
prayed the Government to accord mercy to the prisoner on account of the 
expiation he has already made. It added that only extremists would 
persist in agitation, which, in any case, would henceforth be without nour- 

The Eclair reminded the country of President Loubet's declaration 
that he would bow before the judgment of the court-martial. It said that 
no organized society can live without respect for the decisions of justice. 

The Temps contrasted the calm manner in which the verdict was re- 
ceived in Paris with the excitement it caused in foreign countries, which, 
it says, are giving the matter far greater importance than it deserves. 


The Soleil declared that uobody will contest the impartiality of the 
judges' verdict, which must be accepted. 

M. Jaures said in the Petite HejJicUique Francaise that the verdict is 
a monstrous defiance of conscience and reason. 

The Gaulois congratulated the court-martial on its victory against the 
enemies of the army and France. 

The officers of the Libre Parole, Intransigeant, Le Soir, Petit Journal, 
and other anti-Dreyfus organs were decorated with flags and brilliantly 

The verdict caused a sensation throughout France, especially in Lyons, 
Bordeaux, Nice, Nancy, Marseilles, and Lille, where the public crowded 
around the bulletin boards. 

In Berlin the Dreyfus verdict caused a feeling almost of stupefaction. 
It had been hoped that the statement of the Peichs-Anzeiger, as emanating 
directly from Emperor William, would have rendered impossible the repe- 
tition of what is described as "one of the greatest judicial and political 
crimes of any age." 

It was universally agreed that the second verdict is a grave political 
blunder, a violation of the laws of civilization, and an act of moral cowar- 
dice which the world will find it difficult to pardon. 

The German press unanimously described the verdict as cowardly and 
impolitic, not to say criminal. 

The Cologne Gazette said : 

" It is a cowardly verdict, in the barbarous spirit of the Middle Ages. 
By this crime the judges have imposed a line of demarkation between 
France and the rest of the world, which, although it will not prevent dip- 
lomatic intercourse or stay the common exchange of products, will, accord- 
ing to all the notions of right, justice, honor, tolerance, and ethics which 
the civilized world bears with it in the twentieth century, form a barrier 
only to be removed by time and laborious effort." 

The other leading journals commented upon the verdict in similar 

Indignation was evoked throughout Great Britain. Special prayers 
were offered throughout Saturday, September 9th, in all the London syna- 
gogues on behalf of Dreyfus, and as soon as the verdict was known Jews 


and Jewesses were seen at every street cormer, expressing execration, and 
many sobbing bitterly. 

At the music halls, especially the Palace Theatre, where cinemato- 
graph pictures of the incidents and leading actors of the Dreyfus affair 
were exhibited, the news was greeted with groans and hisses. 

In almost all the London places of public worship pulpit references 
were made on September 10th to the verdict. Canon Scott-Holland, at 
St. Paul's Cathedral, said: 

"A nation is on its trial. France stands at the judgment bar. All 
civilization is waiting to know whether to-morrow's news may add any- 
thing to qualify the naked cruelty of a bare telegram, anything to relieve 
staggered conscience." 

The Eev. Hugh Price Hughes, the well-known Wesleyan divine, 
preaching at St. James's Hall, said : 

" Five unhappy judges have already taken their places, in the judg- 
ment of the human race, beside Judas, Pilate, Judge Jeffries, and other 
foul creatures. They have sentenced their victim to a decade of imprison- 
ment, but they have decreed themselves forever to the scorn, derision, and 
execration of the human race. Unless France shakes off this infamy, 
she will be left without an ally or a friend." 

The Eev. Arthur Robins, chaplain in ordinary to the Queen, preach- 
ing at Holy Trinity, Windsor, said: 

"The civilized world is aghast at this great crime of five abject judges." 

jTlie Daily Mail said : 

"Eennes is France's moral Sedan." 

Tlte Daily Gra/phic said: 

" The Eennes verdict will live forever as the supreme effort of human 

The Daily Chronicle said that Mercier issues from the case one of the 
blackest scoundrels in history. 

The Daily News remarked : 

"It is no longer Dreyfus, but France herself that is on trial." 

Tlie Morning Post declared that " the mitigation of the sentence will 
be interpreted all the world over as evidence that the judges who con- 
demned Dreyfus really believe him innocent." 

The Daily Telegrajph said : 


"This infamous judgment disgraces France, dishonors her army, insults 
the Kaiser, and offends the best principles of humanity. There seems 
nothing left for France but a revolution and a war that will reduce her to 
the level of Spain." 

The Standard said : 

" We are watching by the sick-bed of a great nation, none knowing 
what new and deadly form the malady may assume." 

The Times observed : 

"We do not hesitate to pronounce it the grossest and most appalling 
prostitution of justice the world has witnessed in modern times. All the 
outrageous scandals which marked the course of the trial pale into insig- 
nificance beside the crowning scandal of the verdict." 

Even the Eussian press joined in the chorus, although perhaps the 
Jews are nowhere more hated than in Russia. The judges were every- 
where described as criminals, and gloomy speculations were indulged as to 
what future is in store for France. 

Papers of all nationalities began to fall in with the idea of boycotting 
the Exhibition. 

At Budapest, Hungary, the following semi-official statement was is- 

"A movement is on foot against sending exhibits to the Paris Exposi- 
tion of 1900. Many intending exhibitors have withdrawn their notices 
of participation on the ground that the present state of things in France 
re-nders it unsafe to send exhibits." 

The Cathedral Chapter of Grau, capital of the county of the same 
name, on the Danube, and the residence of the Catholic Primate of Hun- 
gary, has cancelled its decision to send exhibits, giving as a reason its un- 
willingness to endanger works of art worth millions of florins. 

In the United States the feeling was intense. 

Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, following its time-honored custom of 
taking definite action with regard to all great public questions, considered 
the Dreyfus case on September 10th, and adopted resolutions condemning 
his sentence and expressing sympathy for the unfortunate captain and his 
family, and sorrow for France. The famous old church was crowded to 
the doors, and every sympathetic reference to Captain Dreyfus made by 


the speakers, among whom was Dwight L. Moody, the evangelist, was 
received with warm applause. There was a particularly enthusiastic 
demonstration when a communication from the representatives of the 
Congregational churches of Great Britain, who have just arrived here to 
attend the International Council in Boston, v/as read. 

Mr. Moody, after the close of the opening service, said : 

" Our friends who are going to the council in Boston, having learned 
of Captain Dreyfus's fate on their arrival here, want to express an opinion 
on the great Dreyfus trial in France and to offer their sympathy for that 
unfortunate man. Fortunate, rather, for he is suffering for his race. I 
am glad that they have the opportunity to express that opinion." 

The Reverend Horace Porter, assistant pastor of Plymouth, then intro- 
duce G. W. Cowper Smith, one of the delegates, who read the following 
communication from himself and his associates : 

"That we, the undersigned, representatives of the Congregational 
churches of Great Britain, deputed to attend the International Council in 
Boston, having learned on our arrival in the United States of the fresh 
condemnation of Dreyfus, hereby record our amazement and sorrow at the 
verdict, unsustained as it is by public evidence, and express our fervent 
hope that a sense of justice may yet be aroused among the people of 
France that will lead them to repudiate the decision of a military court, 
and thus vindicate the rule of national righteousness." 

Mr. Smith then said : 

" I thank you for this opportunity of being able to introduce in historic 
Plymouth Church, which has so many happy associations with the Eng- 
lish people, the expression of opinion which I have just read." 

Mr. Porter, in behalf of Plymouth Church, read the following resolu- 
tion, which was unanimously adopted: 

" We who are here for Christian worship would remember with sym- 
pathy the undeserved suffering of Alfred Dreyfus and his family, and de- 
clare our sorrowful surprise at the manner of his recent trial and renewed 
condemnation, which we trust and pray may yet be overruled by higher 
authority, acting for the honor of France, for the love of justice, and in 
the fear of God." 

Mr. Moody prefaced his sermon, as he had done at the morning ser- 
vice, by a sympathetic reference to Dreyfus and his family. 


A mere glimpse of the handsome red and blue uniform of a French 
army officer on the stage of the Criterion Theatre during the evening of 
September 9th, the day of the verdict, drove one of the most fashionable 
audiences of the season to fury, and caused one of the greatest pro-Dreyfus 
demonstrations that has occurred in New York. Reserved and good-man- 
nered men and women suddenly assumed the deportment which might be 
expected of an audience at a Bowery melodrama. Men in evening dress 
sprang to their feet, deriding the French army, and women hissed in scorn. 
Cries of "A bas 1-' armtie! " "Shame on France! " and "Long live Drey- 
fus ! " were heard all over the house. People in the orchestra and boxes 
were as demonstrative as those in the gallery. The confusion lasted fully 
three or four minutes, during which the play was interrupted. 

At Louisville, Ky., about twenty-five citizens met at the office of Dr. 
P. G. Trunnell, on September 10th, to perfect the organization of what is 
to be known as the "Dreyfus Sympathizers." Dr. Trunnell, one of the 
organizers, said that the object of the organization was to interest the 
United States Government in the case of Captain Dreyfus, who, they 
believe, had been wrongfully punished. 

A resolution was offered to the effect that the organization appeal to 
the Congress of the United States asking that body not to make any fur- 
ther appropriation for the Paris Exposition, and an amendment was offered 
appealing to the citizens of the United States who champion Captain Drey- 
fus's cause, to avoid France in every way possible, and thus administer a 
rebuke to that nation for the injustice to one of its subjects. The minis- 
ters of all denominations in Louisville were asked to assist in promoting 
thtj interests of the body. 

The Marion Club, of Indianapolis, consisting of one thousand Repub- 
licans of that city, put itself on record on September 10th, as in favor 
of boycotting the Paris Exposition. The following telegram was sent by 
the officers to Senators Beveridge and Fairbanks and Representative Over- 
street, all of whom belong to the club : 

"The Marion Club, as a club which is a lover of justice and fair play, 
urges you, as a just rebuke to military despotism, which has convicted 
Captain Dreyfus, an innocent man, to use your influence with President 
McKinley to get him to withdraw the American Commissioner to the 
Paris Exposition." 


In Philadelphia the verdict was condemned on every side. 

Former Postmaster-General John Wanamaker said : 

" Wliile the Dreyfus episode is the business of France, the widespread 
Interest in the case makes it impossible not to hold an opinion upon it. 
The larger jury of the people throughout the world will not agree with 
the verdict rendered, unless it is intended that the pardoning power will 
promptly remit the unexpired portion of the ten years' sentence." 

Former District Attorney George S. Graham said : " I am not surprised 
at the finding of the court-martial, but, in my opinion, it is the most un- 
justifiable verdict ever rendered in any civilized community." 

Dr. Solomon Solis-Cohen : " To my mind tlie Dreyfus question is not 
a Jewish one. Dreyfus was never identified with his people, either racially 
or religiously, prior to his persecution. The fact of his Hebrew birth has 
been used by his enemies and those of justice and the republic to intensify 
the prejudice against him, and effect his condemnation. The Dreyfus 
affair is in no sense a Jewish matter, but involves the liberty and con- 
science of all mankind." 

Morris Newburger, president of the Jewish Publication Society of 
America: "The condemnation of Dreyfus was a foregone conclusion. 
Every one realized that the trial from its beginning until its ending was a 
travesty upon justice." 

Ralph Blum : " I have always felt that poor Dreyfus was made the 
victim of a conspiracy, because he was born a Hebrew." 

Chicago was equally indignant. 

L. B. Wright, of Wright's Iron Printing Company, said : 

" I have discharged all the Frenchmen in my employ, for one of them 
said Dreyfus should be hanged. The judges violated every principle of 
law and justice." 

Clarence Buckingham, a prominent member of the Stock Exchange: 
"The verdict is an outrageous one, and every one in the United States 
thinks so. Those who prosecuted Dreyfus are smirched." 

Frank 0. Lowden, a lawyer and representative of the George M. Pull- 
man estate: "A republic can do more injustice than a kingdom or an em- 
pire. " 

George Gibault: "It is a perversion of justice." 

Theodore Prouix : " The French papers have printed everything unfa- 


vorable, and the American papers all that was favorable, to Dreyfus. 
Three-fourths of the French people believe him guilty. There will be a 
revolution in France, but the array will suppress it." 

French Consul Henri Merou : " The verdict will have no effect upon 
the Exposition." 

E. G. Keith, President of the Continental National Bank: "The ver- 
dict is unfair." 

Eabbi E. G. Hirsch, of the Sinai Congregation : " I expected this ver- 
dict. It was necessary to prevent the overthrow of the republic, but the 
army now will save it. Franco has passed through a dangerous crisis, 
but the republic will stand. This verdict is an infamous one, but it de- 
cides the question of a republic, a kingdom, or a royalty. For a time at 
least the republic is safe." 

Eli B. Elsenthal : " There was no evidence of guilt whatever. The so- 
called honor of the army of France was placed above truth and justice." 

Levy A. Eiel: "There was no evidence against Dreyfus." 

B. J. Rosenthal: "French judges do not consider evidence." 

A. M. Eothschilds: "It was simply an outrage of justice." 

A. J. Nathan: "This verdict is infamous." 

Boston was not behind in expressing its indignation. 

General William A. Bancroft said the whole trial had been remarka- 
ble for the kind of testimony accepted as evidence. The judge were mili- 
tary. Civil judges might have decided otherwise. 

Colonel Melvin 0. Adams said : 

" If such judgments as this in the Dreyfus case can stand in a coun- 
try, safety of the individual is a mere name. I have no opinion whether 
Dreyfus be in fact innocent or guilty, but his condemnation by such means 
is monstrous." 

In the Hebrew quarter of Boston the opinion is summed up as follows : 

"Of course, Dreyfus is not guilty. If he were they would shoot him, 
ard the fact that they have given him a ten years' sentence shows that he 
is innocent." 

Jay Hunt, recently in Paris, says : 

" The verdict was to uphold the government and army. The president 
of the court was prejudiced from the start." 

Upon learning the verdict of the Dreyfus court-martial Assistant Dis- 


trict Attorney Maurice B. Blumenthal, of New York, took steps for the 
organization of a committee of citizens, irrespective of religious belief, and 
including clergymen of different denominations, to hold a mass meeting to 
protest against the conviction of Captain Dreyfus. A representative com- 
mittee was appointed to wait upon President McKinley and petition him 
to appeal to the President of France to pardon the unfortunate victim. 

This extraordinary outcry of all Christendom against the heinous out- 
rage done to justice and humanity at Eennes was classed as "The Fifth 
Act " in a powerful contribution to the Aurore, signed by Emile Zola, on 
September 10th. The article read as follows: 


I am in mortal fear. It is not anger, avenging indignation, the need 
to proclaim the crime and demand its punishment in the name of truth 
and justice that I feel now; it is terror, the sacred terror of the man who 
sees the impossible being realized, the rivers flowing back to their sources, 
the earth turning without the sun ; and what I fear is the distress of our 
generous and noble France. My dread is of the abyss into which she is 

We had fondly imagined that the • Eennes court-martial was the fifth 
act of the terrible tragedy which we have been living for close upon two 
years past. All the dangerous stages seemed to us to have been passed. 
We thought we were approaching a " denoument " of pacification and con- 
cord. After the dreadful battle the victory of right became inevitable; 
the play must end happily, with the classic triumph of the innocent. 

And we have been deceived ! A new stage opens before us, and that 
the most unexpected end the most terrifying of all, still further darkening 
the drama, prolonging it and urging it toward an unknown termination, 
before which our very reason trembles and grows weak. 

The Eennes trial was only the fourth act, and, great God ! what will 
the fifth act be? What new tortures and sufferings will it bring? To 
what supreme expiation will it force our people? For is it not certain 
that the innocent cannot be twice condemned, and that such an ending 
would blot out the sun and arouse the nations? 

Ah ! that fourth act ! that trial at Eennes ! In what mortal agony did 
I not live through it, in that solitude where I had taken refuge in order to 
disappear from the scene like a good citizen desirous of giving no cause 
for passiou and disorder ! With what a tightening of the heart did I not 


await telegrams, letters, papers ; and what revolt and what pain did their 
perusal not cause me ! The days of that splendid month of August were 
blackened, and never have I felt the gloom and chill of mourning under 
skies so glorious. 

Assuredly, for two years past, I have had my share of suffering. I 
have heard the mob shouting death at my heels. I have seen at my feet 
an ignoble mire of insult and menace. For eighteen months I tasted tlie 
despair of exile. Then there were my two trials — lamentable spectacles 
of villainy and iniquity. 

But what are my trials in comparison with the trial at Rennes ? Idyls, 
refreshing scenes where hope flowers. 

We had been witness of monstrous things — the prosecution of Colonel 
Picquart, the inquiry into the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassa- 
tion, the "loi de dessaisissement " which resulted from it. But all that 
seems childish now. The inevitable progression has followed its course. 
The Rennes trial stands out above all like the abominable flower growing 
atop of all these heaped-up dunghills. 

We have seen the most extraordinary collection of attempts against 
truth and justice — a band of witnesses directing the course of the trial, 
making their plans every night for the cowardly ambush of the morrow, 
pressing the charge, in place of the Public Prosecutor, with lies ; terroriz- 
ing and insulting those who contradicted them, imposing with the inso- 
lence of their stripes and their plumes upon a tribunal knuckling down' 
to this invasion of their chiefs, visibly annoyed at seeing them in crimi- 
nal posture, acting in obedience to a peculiar mental process; a grotesque 
Public Prosecutor, w^ho enlarges the bounds of imbecility and leaves to 
future historians a charge whose stupid and murderous emptiness will be 
an eternal cause of wonder; a man of such senile and obstinate cruelty 
that it seems to be irresponsible, born of a human animal not yet classed ; 
a defence which it was at first endeavored to assassinate, which was after- 
ward made to sit down every time it became troublesome, and which 
finally was refused permission to produce the decisive proof which it de- 
manded, the only witnesses who know. 

And this abomination lasted for a whole month, in face of the innocent 
— that piteous Dreyfus, the poor shreds of whose humanity would make 
the very stones weep. And his former comrades came and kicked him, 
and his former chiefs came and crushed him with their rank so as to save 
themselves from the galleys. And there was never a cry of pity, never a 
throb of generosity in those shameful souls! 

And it i§ Qur sw^et France that has giv^Q ^his spectacle to tjje W9rl4 1 


When tli3 complete report of the Eennes trial is published there will 
exist no more execrable monument of human infamy. This is beyond all. 

Never will a document of such wickedness have been furnished to 
history. Ignorance, folly, cruelty, falsehood, crime are displayed there 
with an impudence that will make future generations shudder. There are 
in that collection avowals of our baseness at which human nature will 

And it is this that makes me tremble, for in order that such a trial 
should have been possible in a nation, that a nation should lay itself open 
to the world for such a consultation upon its social and intellectual condi- 
tion, it must be undergoing a terrible crisis. 

Is it death that is approaching? And what bath of truth, of purity, 
of equity will save us from the poisonous mud in which we are agonizing? 

As I wrote in my letter to the President of the Kepublic after the scan- 
dalous acquittal of Esterhazy, it is impossible for a court-martial to undo 
what a court-martial has done. That would be contrary to discipline, and 
the judgment of the Eennes court-martial — that judgment which in its 
Jesuitical embarrassment has not the courage to say yes or no — is the 
plain proof that military justice is powerless to be just, since it is not free, 
since it defies evidence almost to the point of again condemning an inno- 
cent man rather than cast doubt upon its own infallibility. Military jiis- 
tice is seen to be nothing more than a weapon of execution in the hands 
of the commander. Henceforward it can but be an expeditious form of 
justice in time of war — it must disappear in time of peace. The moment 
it showed itself incapable of equity, of simple logic, and of mere common 
sense it condemned itself. 

Has thought been given to the atrocious situation in which we are 
made to stand among the civilized nations? 

A first court-martial, deceived in its ignorance of the law and its want 
of skill in sifting evidence, condemns an innocent man. A second court- 
martial, which likewise was deceived by a most impudent conspiracy of 
lies and frauds, acquits a guilty man. A third court-martial, when light 
has been thrown on the matter, when the highest magistracy of the coun- 
try consents to leave to it the glory of making reparation for an error, 
dares to deny the full daylight, and a second time finds the innocent 

This is irreparable. The last crime has been committed. Jesus was 
condemned but once. 

But let final ruin come, let Prance fall a prey to faction, let the coun- 
try be aflame and perish in the embers, let the army itself lose honor 

INDIG:N"ATI0N throughout the world 345 

rather than confess that some members of it made a mistake, and that cer- 
tain generals were liars and forgers. The ideal shall be crucified; the 
sabre must remain king ! 

And so we find ourselves in this glorious condition before Europe, be-- 
fore the world I The whole world is convinced of the innocence of Drey- 
fus. If a doubt had remained in the minds of some far-away race the 
blinding glare of the Eeunes trial would have carried the full light there. 
All the courts of the Powers that are our neighbors are well informed, 
know the documents, have proof of the worthlessness of three or four of 
our generals and of the shameful paralysis of our military justice. 

A moral Sedan has been lost — a Sedan a liundredfold more disastrous 
than that other one where only blood was spilt. 

And I repeat, what fills me with dread is that this defeat of our honor 
seems irreparable, for how are we to quash the judgments of three courts- 
martial? Where shall we find the heroism to confess our fault, to march 
onward with head uplifted proudly? Where is the government with 
courage to be a government of public safety ? Where are the chambers 
that will understand and act before the inevitable final crash ? 

The worst of it all is that we have come to a reckoning day of glory. 
France desires to celebrate its century of labor, of science, of struggle for 
liberty, for truth and for justice. No century that has passed has been 
marked by more superb effort; this will be seen later on. And France 
has called together in her capital all the peoples of the earth to glorify her 
victory, liberty won, truth and justice promised to earth. 

Thus, a few months hence the peoples will come; and what they will 
find "will be the innocent twice condemned, truth trampled upon, justice 
assassinated. We have fallen beneath their contempt; and they will 
come and laugh at us in our very faces. They will drink our wines, they 
will kiss our maid-servants, as people do in the low-class inn which is 
not above that sort of thing. 

Is all this possible ? Are we going to allow our Exhibition to be the 
foul, despised place where the whole world is willing to seek its pleasures 

No ! a thousand times no ! We must have, and that at once, the fifth 
act of the monstrous tragedy, even if we have to lose our flesh and blood 
in the effort. We must have our honor restored before we salute the 
visiting peoples in a France healed and regenerated. 

This fifth act haunts me, and I am ever recurring to it. I am work- 
ing on it; I build it up in my imagination. 

Has it been noticed that, this Dreyfus affair, this gigantic drama whicb 


moves the universe, seems to be staged by some sublime dramatist desirous 
of making it an incomparable masterpiece ? I will not recall the extraor- 
dinary incidents that have stirred our souls. At every fresh act passion 
has swollen, horror has grown more intense. In this living piece it is 
Fate that has genius. Destiny is there, actuating the players, determining 
the incidents under the tempest it unchains; and assuredly it wants the 
masterpiece to be complete, and is preparing for us a fifth act — a super- 
human act which will make France glorious once again and replace her in 
the forefront cf the nations. 

For you may be sure of this — it was Fate that decreed the supreme 
crime — the second condemnation of the innocent. The crime had to be 
committed for the sake of the tragic grandeur, the sovereign beauty, the 
expiation, perhaps, which will allow of the apotheosis, the final transfor- 
mation scene. 

And now that we hatve sounded the uttermost depths of horror, I 
await the fifth act, which will end the drama by delivering us, by restor- 
ing us to health and fresh youth. 

I will now speak plainly of my fear. It has always been, as I have 
allowed it to be understood on several occasions, that the truth, the deci- 
sive, overwhelming proof should come to us from Germany. We must 
look the possibility of Germany bringing out the fifth act of the drama in 
a thunderclap squarely and courageously in the face. 

Here is my confession. 

Previous to my trial, in January, 1898, I learned with certainty that 
Esterhazy was the traitor; that he had supplied M. de Schwartzkoppen 
with a large number of documents; that many of these documents were in 
his handwriting, and that a complete collection of them was to be found 
in the War Office at Berlin. 

From that time on I have, as a good Frenchman, been in constant 
dread. I thought with terror that Germany, our enemy of to-morrow, 
would perhaps slap us in the face with the proofs in its possession. Ac- 
cordingly, with Labori, I decided to cite as witnesses the foreign military 
attaches. We were well aware we were not likely to bring them to the 
bar, but we desired to let the Government know we knew the truth, in the 
hope that it would take action. 

No heed was taken. Mock was made of us. The weapon Germany 
has in her hands was left there, and matters remained unchanged up to 
the time of the Piennes trial. 

On my return to France I hurried to see Labori. I insisted, with the 
energy of dggpair, on gteps being taken t9 bring the matter before the Cab- 


inet, to demonstrate the dreadful character of the situation, and to ask if 
the Government would not intervene, so as to obtain the documents for us. 
That was certainly a most delicate matter. Then there was that unfortu- 
nate Dreyfus to be saved, so that we were prepared to make every conces- 
sion for fear of irritating public opinion, already at a high pitch of excite- 
ment. If the court-martial acquitted Dreyfus, it thereby deprived the 
documents of their nocuous virus ; it shattered in the hands of Germany 
the weapon she might have used. The acquittal of Dreyfus meant the 
recognition of an error and its reparation. 

My patriotic torment grew more intolerable when I felt that a court- 
martial was about to aggra*vate the danger by again condemning the inno- 
cent — the man whose innocence would one day be cried aloud by the pub- 
lication of the documents in Berlin. 

That is why I have never ceased to act, begging Labori to demand the 
documents, to cite M. de Schwartzkoppen, who alone can throw full light 
on the matter ; and the day that Labori took advantage of the opportunity 
given him by the accusers bringing to the bar an unworthy foreigner, the 
day he arose and demanded that the court-martial hear the man from 
whom a single word would close the affair, he did his duty. His w^as the 
heroic voice that nothing can reduce to silence. His demand has survived 
the trial, and must inevitably reopen it and end it once for all by the only 
possible solution — the acquittal of the innocent. 

The demand for the documents has been made. Their ultimate pro- 
duction is a certainty. 

You see the awful, intolerable danger in which the president of the 
Eennes court-martial has put us by refusing to use his discretionary power 
to prevent the publication of the documents. Never was anything more 
brutal! Never was the door so wilfully shut upon the truth! And a 
third court-martial was added to the two others, in which the error was so 
blinding that the denial from Berlin would now condemn three iniquitous 

The Ministry forgot that government is foresight. If it does not wish 
to leave to the good pleasure of Germany the fifth act, the "d^noument," 
before which every good Frenchman should tremble, it is the Government's 
duty to play this fifth act without delay in order to prevent its coming to 
us from Germany. The Government can procure the documents. Diplo- 
macy has settled greater difficulties than this. Whenever it ventures to ask 
for the documents enumerated in the bordereau they will be given, and 
that will be the "fait nouveau " which will necessitate a second revision 
before the Court of Cassation, which will be this time, I hope, fully in- 


formed, and would quash the verdict "sans renvoi " in the plenitude of its 
sovereign majesty. 

But if the Government still hesitates, the defenders of truth and justice 
will do what is necessary. Not one of us will desert his post. Invinci- 
ble proof we shall finally end by obtaining. 

On November 23d, we shall be at Versailles. My trial will recom- 
mence, inasmuch as it is to recommence in all its fulness. If, meanwhile, 
justice is not done we will again have to do it. My beloved, my valiant 
Labori, whose honor has but increased, will pronounce at Versailles the 
address which he was unable to pronounce at Eennes. And thus, as you 
see, nothing will be lost. He will merely have to tell the truth, without 
fear of injuring me, for I am ready to pay for it with my liberty and my 
blood. Before the Seine Assize Court I swore to the innocence of Drey- 
fus. I swear to it before the entire world, which now proclaims it with 
me; and I repeat, truth is on the march. Nothing will stop it. At 
Eennes it has just made a giant's stride. 

I no longer have any fear except that I may see it arrive in a thunder- 
clap of the avenging Nemesis. Emile Zola. 


Chapter LIV. 


Mathieu Dreyfus, in an interview, in Paris, September 11th, was 
quoted as saying : 

" Yesterday, before leaving Eennes for Paris, I talked for two hours 
with my brother, Captain Dreyfus. He is a marvellous man. After all 
these years of suffering he is as strong to-day in declaring his innocence 
as he was on the Champ de Mars, when first condemned. 

" Those who spread rumors that he intends to commit suicide know 
not that an indomitable spirit animates his attenuated frame. When I 
heard the horrible report in Paris this morning that he had committed 
suicide, I could not help thinking one of his bitter enemies had circulated 
it in the hope that it might reach his ears, and that he would act upon the 
suggestion, as weakened men sometimes do. But his enemies will never 
have that grewsome pleasure. He is full of hope and looks fearlessly to 
the future. 

" He does not need to-day the soothing voice of Mme. Dreyfus to in- 
duce him to continue to live. Mme. Dreyfus is similarly hopeful. 

" Maitres Demange and Labori, both of whom have gone to the country 
for some much needed repose, have given the whole family much encour- 
agement. I, who have been charged by my brother with the rehabilita- 
tion of our name, have firm faith in the near future. 

" The recent trial practically rehabilitates him. Outside a very limit- 
ed circle his name is as fair as though the Eennes court-martial had 
declared him innocent. Suppose the son of Captain Dreyfus were to travel 
in the United States when he grows up to manhood, do you think there is 
one throughout the length and breadth of the land who would point to him 
as the son of a traitor? On the contrary, they would say, ' This is the 
youth who for years was unjustly robbed of his father,' and they would 
honor him as the son of a martyr. 


"My brother's innocence is believed by everybody outside of France 
and by most people in France." 

Maitre Labori has been resting at Sammois, a short distance from 
Paris. He said, in an interview : 

" We have won a great deal, considering that the most important evi- 
dence was excluded. Imagine where we are to-day, as compared with two 
years ago. If you ask me what do I think the most important gain of all 
in this fight for justice, I should answer, 'It is the world's awakening to 
the justice of our cause.' 

" The great newspapers of all lands have taken such a keen interest in 
the question, and caught such a thorough grasp of it, that they are sure to 
continue speaking in the name of humanity and civilization. For it is 
pot the cause of Dreyfus alone which is at stake ; it is the cause of hu- 
manity and civilization. The great newspapers have already given ample 
evidence that they understand this, and if they follow up their broad and 
generous grasp of the question by reminding the Emperor of Germany 
that he owes a duty to humanity and to civilization, he is not the kind of 
a man to shirk it. That duty is to deliver to the French Government the 
documents mentioned in the bordereau. As soon as this responsibility, 
not to an individual, but to humanity and civilization, is made clear to 
him, the German Emperor is man of spirit and heart enough to act up to it. 

" The verdict as it stands is neither yes nor no. Obviously the court 
had little knowledge of law, and less of evidence. 

" We have gained much in other ways. His first condemnation was 
for twenty years, his second for ten ; his first, to Devil's Island, permitted 
cruel and inhuman treatment; his second permits communication with 
the outer world ; his first condemnation was unanimous : his second is 
given in such a way that even the five who declared him guilty showed 
they were not sure. 

"Dreyfus's name is no longer stained before the civilized world, and 
in a short time there will be fewer still who believe him guilty." 



Chapter LV. 


The Figaro, of Paris, secured the first interview with Dreyfus after his 
release from arrest. It was printed in the New York Herald, on Sep- 
tember 22d, and read as follows: 

" I do not know where to begin the story of emotion which I have 
just lived through, so much has the flood overflowed my mind and my 
heart. It lias been given me to share for twenty-four hours — all that is 
best in me — in the most terrible suffering that it is possible to imagine in 
the destiny of a human being with whose fate the elite of the civilized 
world has united itself for two years, and against whom all the ignorance 
and malice of men have been leagued. This being, whom one would say 
was accursed, is my brother, whom my saddened thoughts went out to 
join and compassionate across the seas ; he is there in the presence of my 
real deep sympathy. 

Every precaution had been taken for Dreyfus to leave Eennes without 
inconvenience. Advised in the evening, he had passed his time — being 
unable to sleep — in packing his trunk. At half-past two in the morning 
M. Viguie, directeur de la suret(5 g^n^rale, accompanied by one of his 
controleuro, came to fetch him in a carriage at the gate of the Manuten- 
tion, and they went to the station of Vern, situated ten kilometres from 

" Nothing suspicious had been seen in the neighborhood of the prison, 
but after a few hundred yards had been traversed M. Viguie, leaning out 
of the window of the landau, noticed a red lantern following, evidently 
that of a journalist. How was he to throw the intruder off the scent? 
The driver whipped up his horses, which broke into a gallop. They thus 
came to within four hundred metres of the station of Vern, and it was 
perceived they had a big start of the man who was following. 

" The carriage stopped at the corner of the road. The passengers got 


out quickly and hid themselves behind a house by the roadside, and the 
carriage, which now contained only the chef de cabinet of the prefect of 


He et Vilaine, rolled on into darkness. 

"This stratagem escaped the notice of the man following. His car- 
riage soon passed by the invisible group, and followed the other landau at 
full speed. Then they walked quietly to Vern Station, and got into the 
4:36 A.M. train from Eennes to Chateaubriand. The latter place was 
reached at 6:14 a.m. 

" The travellers changed carriages and arrived at Nantes at seventeen 
minutes past eight o'clock. I was on the platform at the arrival of the 
train. It would take too long to relate how I was able to foresee this 
itinerary. Nevertheless I was not without uneasiness as to the success of 
my plan. The platform was deserted. Had I made a mistake? I soon 
saw two men dressed in black approaching, and I immediately recognized 
them. They were Mathieu Dreyfus and his nephew, Paul Valabregue. 

"My tips were good. My mind was relieved. Should I go up to 
Mathieu Dreyfus, whom I knew well, or should I hide to follow him at 
leisure ? I hesitated between these two alternatives, and watched the two 
men. They looked to right and left, as though they were afraid of being 

" I made up my mind at once and approached. What was the stupe- 
faction, I may almost say the distress, of Mathieu Dreyfus, when I ap- 
proached him ! I quickly understood his fears and quieted them. I 
assured him that the train that was about to carry his brother away would 
have only one more passenger, and that no indiscretion on my part would 
interfere with the success of their journey. 

"He begged me to keep my vow, and I have kept it. 

" At this moment Captain Dreyfus is hidden in the midst of his own 
people. I may now relate this touching Odyssey, all the details of which 
will remain forever fixed in my memory. 

"Here is the train from Chateau Briant coming. It stops, the door 
opens, some men get down. 

"Mathieu Dreyfus stands aside. Then when they are twenty metres 
off he follows them. I go with him. 

" ' Did you see? ' he asked. 

" I saw nothing but a group of four or five persons carrying bags and 


rugs, and it would have been impossible for me to recognize Captain Drey- 
fus among them. 

"' Look!' said his brother, ' there he is with that rug.' 

" I saw a bowed back, dressed in black, making its way to the buffet 
of the station. 

" In a moment we entered. Already the passengers are at the tables. 
In a small room at the further end Captain Dreyfus is seated eating. His 
brotlier draws near. He rises. His mouth opens in an affectionate smile, 
and the brothers meet with a long embrace, without speaking a word. No 
one but myself witnessed this scene, so touching in its melancholy sym- 

Mathieu introduced me to his brother. Captain Dreyfus holds out 
his hand. I press it and speak of the profound joy which his freedom will 
give to so many beings to whom it will be like a personal deliverance. 
He wears a navy blue suit and over it a black overcoat, the collar of 
which gapes behind, and on his head a soft, black felt hat. 

" ' It is in order not to be recognized,' he says, smiling, ' but it annoys 
me. I am not used to it, and I see nothing in it.' 

"'Make haste,' says his brother, ' for we are going to start.' He seats 
himself again obediently, and empties his cup of milk, for his stomach 
cannot bear anything else. 

"During this time M. Viguie has reserved seats in two compartments, 
for at present the service of surveillance is composed of three inspectors, 
chosen from among the best men of Henuion's brigade, who accompanied 
him to Rennes, and on whom falls the heavy responsibility of the long 
journey we are about to make. 

" Captain Dreyfus enters the sleeping-car compartment with M. Mathieu 
Dreyfus, M. Paid Valabregue, his nephew, and myself. 

"M. Viguie has just made his last suggestions, for he goes no further. 
Captain and Mathieu Dreyfus congratulate him on the skill and prudence 
he has displayed since their departure from Rennes, and the common wish 
is expressed that the rest of the journey may pass off equally well. 

" The train moves at two minutes of nine. I am seated facing Captain 
Dreyfus. I never remove my eyes from him for an instant. I am sur- 
prised at the effect he produces on me. I expected, whatever my senti- 
ments might be as to his case, to find myself confronted by a being who 


awakened no sympathy. He has been described as a haughty and disa- 
greeable person, with a harsh voice and wandering eyes. I had imagined 
him as hard, mistrustful, gloomy, if not bearing hate at least bitter ; and 
I own that I was ready to forgive him all those things. I find before me 
a man with fine, regular features, with a calm and mild expression. He 
is pink of face, which would give him an expression of extreme youth if 
the top of his head were not absolutely bald, and if the hair on each side 
were not quite gray. This being is enfeebled by anaemia, and what blood 
there is left in him flows toward the head, the last refuge of his prodigious 
vitality. His neck is thin, his hands are long and bony, and the knees 
are pointed like nails through the blue cloth of his trousers. 

" His chest is hollowed, his entire body is that of a vanquished being 
but for the energy of the mouth, the square jaw, and the will expressed in 
the look of his eyes. They are blue, charming and mild, limpid and 
clear. Far from shunning one's look, he fixes his eyes on you with assu- 
rance behind his eye-glasses, and his look is not that of a man of whom 
a monster of hypocrisy has been made, of whom one scoundrel has said 
that ' he sweated treason.' 

" The train rolls on toward Bordeaux. M. Mathieu Dreyfus looks at 
his brother with tender eyes. 

"' Well,' he asks, ' are you comfortable? You are not cold? ' 

"'Oh, no! I am well covered up with my flannel vest, two wool 
shirts, my coat and overcoat. I am very well — and then you forget the 
freedom. It is good to feel free, free, free ! Not to feel people everlast- 
ii)g round you spying each movement, each gesture. That, mind you, is 
the odious, insupportable thing. To be shut up one can bear, though it iis 
painful after a long time; but the eye of that man whose hostile examina- 
tion of the smallest movements of your body you have felt every minute 
for five years — oh ! it is horrible ! ' 

" ' Do not tire yourself too much,' observed Mathieu, paternally. 
'You must be very tired.' 

" ' Let me alone,' replied fhe captain, ' I feel the want of speaking. 
Just think that I have not spoken for five years. Then I feel so well — no 
fatigue, no pain — excitement probably — and to-morrow I shall suffer for 
it, but to-day I mean to do what I please.' 

" He smiles, with a fine and thin smile which is far from being one 


of gayety, but which has rather the air of an unbeuding of the nerves of 
the mouth, which have so long been contracted. 

" Laugh ? How could Captain Dreyfus ever laugh? His life, suddenly 
overwhelmed under the deluge of adversity and catastrophe, under the 
terrible chaos of misfortune, will always retain the crushing weight of 
sadness. His impoverished blood will never again course joyously 
through his cold veins, and between happiness and him will always inter- 
vene the black muslin of melancholy. 

"Already it sufficed to make sadness suddenly appear in his eyes that 
a name shovdd be pronounced — that of General Mercier, mentioned by 
chance in the conversation. 

"' Mercier,' I asked Dreyfus; ' what impression did his depositions 
make upon you ? ' 

" Said he sharply : ' He is a malicious man and a dishonest man, but I 
do not think he is conscious of the extent of the evil he has done. He 
is too intelligent for me to be able to say that he is unconscious, but if he 
is mentally conscious, he is morally unconscious. He is a man without 
moral sense.' 

" The train rushes on through the fertile land of this admirable coun- 
try of the Vendean Bocage. Captain Dreyfus looks at the country. 

" ' How pretty this country is ! ' he says. ' Look at that little village, 
those cocks, those hens, those fine trees, outlined by the mist! Think 
that during a year I have seen only the sky and sea, and during four years 
the sky only, a square of brilliant blue, metallic, hard, and always alike, 
without a cloud ! And, when I came back to France, you know how it 
was — by night in the midst of a terrible storm, taken from a ship into a 
boat, from the boat into a carriage, thence into a wagon, to arrive at last 
at a prison at dawn. So these are the first trees I have seen.' 

" The landscape unfolds itself. Here is a sparkling stream, bordered 
with poplars, a large wood, fresh and green, more pine spaces out on the 
slopes. An old woman is washing linen on the banks of a pond. White 
steeples and red steeples, golden ricks, ruins, a peaceful little village, 
which seems half in mourning with its white house-points and slate 
roofs, sad meres full of reeds and faded water-lilies, and, suddenly, wide 
barren spaces with a few meagre pines and brambles growing between the 


" Captain Dreyfus looks at all these as if they were indeed something 
new to him. He devours them with his eyes. 

" ' I should be as pleased as a child,' he says, ' to run about in those 
meadows and amuse myself with nothing. I am like a convalescent com- 
ing back to life.' 

" Since the start he had never left off smoking. 

" ' You smoke too much, ' said his brother. 

"' Let me smoke; let me talk. It is so long since.' 

" We talk of the death of Scheurer-Kestner. He told us the infinite 
sorrow he had felt at the thought that he would never be able to thank 
him, that he would never see the man who had done so much for him, 
and to whom he owed his liberty. He seemed to dream for a moment. 
Then he said: 

" ' What fine characters have displayed themselves iu this affair ! ' 

" ' Have you written many letters since you returned ? ' I asked. 

" ' None ; I have not had time, but now I am going to write those that 
I ought to write. Think ! I have received more than five thousand since 
my return to France, without counting those that my wife has received on 
her side — very humble testimonials, besides very high ones. Oh, it has 
done me good ! Officers, even on active service, have written to "me and 
signed their names. One of my comrades in promotion wrote me the 
simple words, " Glad at your return ; glad at your approaching rehabilita- 
tion." That consoles me for many desertions and for the unexpected hos- 
tility of many of my comrades. 

" ' Ah ! What I suffered from those depositions in which they came 
spontaneously to say things which had no connection with the trial, but 
which they thought might injure me ! And, mind you, I do not think it 
was out of malice against me — no, it was merely to please the chiefs. 
Ah! there are natures which conserve a very strange idea of duty. In- 
stead of understanding by discipline obedience on the field of battle or in 
barracks, they extend it to the degradation of reason and moral liberty. 

"' For me, I never could bend myself to such discipline, and I never 
could have believed that it was possible for officers to do so.'" 


Chapter LVL 


"'How do you explain this animosity against you since 1894 in the 
offices of the General Staff ? ' " continued the correspondent. 

" ' I think that the cause of it is rather complex. First, and above all, 
I was believed to be guilty. It could never have been suspected that they 
could have plunged so lightheartedly into error. Then there was anti- 
Semitism in a latent state. Lastly, my manner may perhaps have had 
something to do with it. Yes, it was rather curt, but only with my 
chiefs, for, of j course, I strove to show as much consideration as possible 
to my inferiors. I scarcely associated with any one, and when I entered 
the General Staff I had paid no visit to any one. I contented myseK with 
sending cards by my orderly to the chief and sub-chief of the General Staff 
and the chief and sub-chief of my office, and that was alL 

" ' In my dealings with my chiefs I always retained my outspokenness 
and independence. If a plan or any piece of work seemed to me to be 
badly conceived, I did not hesitate to say so aloud, instead of considering 
myself obliged to approve everything in advance, as I saw done all around 
me, when it was a chief who spoke or acted. 

" ' I know that people don't like that. Colonel Bertin Mourot said 
something with deep meaning at Eennes, speaking of that admirable man, 
that hero, Colonel Picquart. It was felt that this officer did not walk be- 
hind the chiefs. That is their psychology and all their morality.' 

" ' Walk behind the chiefs as if it were in war or at the manoeuvres ? ' 

" ' Yes, certainly, but when it is a question of honor and duty is there 
any need to walk behind any one? Has one not one's own conscience? ' 

"The hour for luncheon was approaching. We reach La Eoche-sur- 
Yonne. They brought us some well-stocked baskets, containing hasd- 
boiled eggs, cold meat, two biscuits, some chocolate, white wine, mineral 
water, and two little flasks of cinchona and rum. All these were carefully 
packed in tiny boxes or wrapped up. 


"Mathieu wanted to prevent Alfred eating the meats. 'You know 
quite well that Delbet forbade j'ou.' 

" ' What does it matter for once ? To-morrow I will be good, but to- 
day is a holiday. Be easy ; 1 feel so well. It is like a new life ' — and 
Mathieu Dreyfus agrees to everything like a good-natured parent to a loved 
child whom he wishes to restore to health. 

" The conversation now rolled on eveiything at haphazard. 

" And Esterhazy — what do you think of him ? ' 

"In quiet, measured accents, slightly doubtful, even like a savant 
propounding an hypothesis, he replied: 

" ' I think he is a swindler, a chevalier cVindustrie, who has swindled 
his country — it is not even his country — just as he swindled his cousin 
and his tradesmen, but without in the least realizing that he did so. He 
wanted money. That was the motive, for/ he continued with animation, 
'for every crime there must be a motive.' 

What could it have been in my case ? No one ever saw me touch a 
card, so I was not a gambler. It was said that I had led a fast life. How 
can you explain, then, that I took the ninth place on leaving the college? 
Don't people know what arduous work these examinations mean? How 
can work be allied with debauch ? 

"' General Mercier said that the search for a motive for a crime be- 
longed to the domain of psychology, and that we were on the judicial do- 
main. What does that mean ? I was never in the law, but it seems to 
me that the first thing to be done when one suspects a criminal is to dis- 
cover the motive for his crime. That is what I call sound sense.' 

"He shrugged his shoulders, and his grave voice rose high in the si- 
lence of the stopped train. Then, lowering his voice, he repeated several 
times, accentuating each word, ' Sound sense. Simple, sober sense.' 

"The train started, and the captain went on: 

" ' As to the theory of the court-martial upon the extenuating circum- 
stances, it is just like this: Treason against his country is the greatest 
crime a human being can commit. A murderer, a thief may find some 
excuse for themselves ; their crime is one against an individual. Treason 
is a crime against a collectivity. There are no extenuating circumstances. 
It is a monstrosity.' 

"' What effect did the verdict have upon you? ' 


"The voice was at once lowered, and sadly he said: ' It was first of all 
intense anguish, then stupefaction, then very comforting when I learned 
that two officers had had the courage to declare me entirely innocent. I 
swear that those two brave officers were right.' 

" In speaking Dreyfus uses two gestures. When lie reasons his thumb 
and first finger touch, forming a circle. When he is impassioned or car- 
ried away his hand opens out with the fingers apart, as in the case of all 
sincere and frank persons. 

"His brother now questions him. 

" ' What is exactly the climate over there ? ' 

"Forty to fifty degrees [Centigrade = 104° to 122° Fahrenheit] by 
day, and never below twenty-five [77° F.] at night. That is the most 
terrible and most exhausting thing about it, for at a stretch one can bear heat 
provided one breathes a little fresh air from time to time; there — never.' 

" ' And you never knew anything of what was being done in France for 
you? ' I asked. 

" ' Never a word ; not a single word. From time to time the rigors 
were redoubled. I know now that that coincided with the declarations of 
the Ministers of War. Every time one of them ascended the rostrum and 
declared that I had been justly and legally condemned, I felt the effects 
through the medium of my jailers. They cut off my food, or my reading, 
or my work, or my walk, or the sight of the sea, and, finally, moving about 
with the aid of the double ' boucle.' 

" ' M. Mathieu Dreyfus regarded his brother with emotion. 

"' Is it not awful?' he said. ' Happily, we knew nothing about it 
here, for our efforts would have been hampered thereby. If we had known 
that every step toward the truth brought him suffering, perhaps our ardor 
would have been diminished. But what pretext did your jailers give you ? ' 

" ' None, and I did not ask for any. I did not wish to be beholden to 
those people in any way. Besides, I did not wish to discuss my sentence 
or its execution in any way, for to discuss it would have implied to recog- 
nize it.' 

"These words were said with extraordinary firmness, almost with 

" ' Yet one day,' he went on, ' the day when they put irons on my 
feet, I asked the reason of the barbarous treatment. They replied^ " Pre- 


cautionary measure," It was the day following that when a denial had 
been given of the bogus a^ttempt to escape. 

" ' Ah, I well remember that night. It was not nine o'clock. I was 
in bed, when I heard musketry fire and a great commotion all around me ; 
I sat up in bed and cried, "What is it? Who is there? " No one replied; 
my guard was silent. I did not stir, thanks to I know not what instinct. 
It was a good thing I did not, for I should have been instantly shot.' 

" ' And so you imagined that General de Boisdeffre was looking after 
your interests ? ' 

"' Yes, I see now that I was mistaken.' 

* ' Would you re-enter the army if legally you had the right ? ' 

"' No; I will resign the very evening of my rehabilitation.' 

" ' In short, do you think it has been an error or a conspiracy ? ' 

" ' I think that at the beginning, up to the time of the court-martial 
of 1894 — that is to say, toward the end of this investigation — they be- 
lieved — at least, the majority of the persons connected with it — that I was 
guilty, but at the court-martial it was different. I am certain that from 
that moment, as they felt they had made a mistake, they were afraid of 
being accused of carelessness, and they accumulated against me all kinds 
of machinations. The proof of this has been given by Captain Freystaetter. 

" ' They have provided behind my back documents that they knew 
were false, in order to secure my condemnation. When Captain Frey- 
staetter said this at Eennes, and uttered the words " Panizzardi despatch " 
in his calm tones, I shuddered in all my being. How could they do such 
a thing as that ? ' 

" In telling me this Captain Dreyfus's eyes opened wide with a fright- 
ened kind of stare, and he moved toward me as if the better to impress on 
me the horror that he felt. 

" I questioned him again : 

" ' You speak in certain letters of your fear of madness. How, indeed, 
inactive as you were, ill in body and mind, without books and not knowing 
what your fate would be — how did you succeed in warding off insanity ? ' 

"'In 1896 and 1897, as I had resolved to live, I removed from my 
table the photographs of my wife and children, the sight of whom made 
me suffer and weakened me. I no longer wished to see them, and I ended 
by only regarding them as symbols without tlie human figure, tho thought 


of which unnerved me too much. I did not want to weaken. When one 
.has a duty it must be accomplished to the end, and I wanted to live for 
my wife and children. It ^7a3 the same during the trial at Eennes. 
When I was in so much need of strength — well, I would not re-read my 
diary of Devil's Island, so as not to unnerve myself and to preserve my 
energy, for (and he repeated this several times) when one has resolved to 
do one's duty one must go on to the end.' 

"His fist strikes the seat, giving emphasis to his words. 

" ' Do you know,' he continued, ' what is most fatiguing in struggles 
like mine? It is a passive resistance. To have struggled like my brother 
for five years is indeed exhausting, but at least the effort leads to result. 
You move, go here and there, cry, but you act; while a passive resistance 
which mine had to be is more exhausting, and still more depressing be- 
cause it exacts the effort of every minute in your life without resting a 
single minute. It is that, together with the lack of fresh air, which has 
exhausted me most.' 

" ' But you must have had terrible nightmares ? ' 

"'Oh, yes. I wrote them down in my diary afterward, but I could 
not recall them at present. When the guard heard me talking aloud in 
the night he would come to the foot of my bed to listen to my words, in 
order to report them next day in his report to the governor.' 

" We were nearing Bordeaux. The captain once more looked out on 
the country. 

" ' Oh, the beautiful vineyards ! ' he exclaimed, and continuing he said: 
' It is so sweet, so quieting. When evening falls just see what charm 
there is about those light mists encircling the trees.' 

"' Wliat are you going to do now, captain? ' I asked. 

"'To live alone with my wife and children henceforth. My children 
are my greatest joy on earth. The elder, it seems, remembers me. The 
girl was only a few months old in 1894, so I do not know her. I did 
not wish to see them at Eennes in order not to leave the sad impression 
of the prison on their young minds. One should not darken a child's 
imagination; but I am going to see them with great joy in two days' 
time. I want to bring them up myself, and in common with their mother 
to supervise their instruction, and education, because I am opposed tq 
boarding schools. 


" ' When my children were small it was a holiday for me to talk with 
them, to form them from their earliest age. Unfortunately, events did not 
permit it, but I hope to catch up.' 

"Bordeaux — Is the journey going to last thus to the end? Kot quite. 
Alas ! the Gironde had received from Rennes a despatch announcing that 
Captain Dreyfus had left for Nantes, and local men inferred therefrom 
that he was going to alight at Bordeaux. 

"Here they are indeed trying to recognize the captain, but we pass 
quickly through the crowd, and Mathieu Dreyfus alone is recognized. 
We at once enter the Hotel Terminus, which adjoins the station, and go 
upstairs for a wash. We are spotted. All the hotel knows about it 
straightway, as we can tell by the faces of the servants scrutinizing us. 
Still, we must dine and continue our route. We have the meal served in 
a salon, and dine with some gayety under the curious eye of the head- 
waiter, who is flustered. The captain is in good spirits. He asks me 
point-blank : 

" ' Do you wish to know my opinion on the " affaire " ? ' and as we all 
laugh over this outburst, he says to me, half serious, half gay : 

"' Well, the fact is, I do not yet understand how they could accuse me 
of such a crime.' 

"The agents of the detective department send us word that they are in 
waiting. Our tickets are taken for Cette. 

" The station master is informed that we are going there to embark for 
Spain, and we hope he will spread the news, in order to lead the curious 
off the track. But all is in vain. A hundred people are stationed on the 
quay in front of the Hotel Terminus. 

" The detectives decide to have us go into the street and go on to the 
platform by a public entrance, which is now deserted. This is what we 
do, and the surprised crowd has barely time to see us shut ourselves in 
our compartments without being able to distinguish the object of its curi- 
osity. Five minutes more we stay there. The crowd does not utter a 
single cry. What a sign of calmer days ! 

"Then at thirty-eight minutes after seven o'clock the train starts with- 
out the shade of a murmur. Fifty yards away a railway employee cries, 
' Bravo ! ' while on the other side of the platform a voice cries, ' Down with 
Dreyfus ! ' 


" Captain Dreyfus, who hears both cries, makes a reflection worthy of 
a mathematician that equals things up. 

•' ]'rom now on it was known that the train had Captain Dreyfus on 
bo.'"-^^ id calmly stretched out by the side of his brother Mathieu, in a 
sleep'", tlie blinds of which were drawn, the captain was trying to sleep 
for t'. '^ Pi.^t time as a free man. 

" The night passed off well, and when in the morning at five o'clock we 
saw the captain again, he seemed rested, content and happy, as on the 
night before, even happier at the approach of the final goal. I have not 
yet said that this goal was Carpentras, where the Yalabregue family owns 
a beautiful place, well situated and surrounded by other friendly families, 
and where Mathieu Dreyfus and Mme. Lucie Dreyfus had decided to shel- 
ter the captain directly he was liberated. 

" The day breaks. The sun rises amid purple clouds on the horizon. 
I go forward to say farewell to the captain, who is watching the marvel- 
lous spectacle through the carriage window. I had a few words from him 
as to the present state of his mind. He says to me : 

" ' I have been the victim of ideas. I feel no bitterness. I nourish no 
hatred for those v>^ho have wronged me so deeply. I feel only pity for 
them. What v/e must know is that never again can such misfortune be- 
fall any man.' 

" I ask him : ' Are you aware of the intensity of feeling that your mis- 
fortune has aroused ? You know that people hate you, but you know that 
there are many others whose hearts have bled for your sufferings.' 

" ' I cannot take it myself. I represent in the eyes of sensitive people 
part of the human suffering, but part only, and I understand perfectly that 
it is the kindness of my fellow-beings which moved them at this symbol 
that I personify.' 

" ' Do you intend to live at Carpentras ? ' 

" ' Yes, until my health is restored and I have completely rested. I 
would not go abroad as I was asked to do. The reception I might have 
had would have had the air of reprisals against the country, and I could 
not make up my mind.' 

" We had not spoken of the pardon. It was time to do so. 

"' I did not ask for the pardon,' he said, ' but I accept it as an ac- 
knowledgment of my suffering and that of my wife, for we both need a 


little respite, but this pardon in no way affects my resolution to seek my 
rehabilitation. I will not know either insult or menace, but I will know 
no weakness — I mean mental weakness. Must not the soul dominate 
over the body ? ' 

"Avignon. The train stops. We all get off. In twenty paces we go 
out of the station. Two landaus are in waiting. A servant takes the 
luggage. The captain, M. Mathieu Dreyfus, and M. Paul Valabregue get 
into one carriage, the detective and inspector into the other. 

" We exchange a last shake of the hand through the window, and the 
historic procession quickly disappears around the great trees. 

" Carpentras is twenty kilometres from Avignon. This morning the 
prefect of Vaucluse telephoned l<j the mayor of Carpentras to inform him 
that Captain Dreyfus was v/ithin his walls, and to beg him to order police 
measures to be taken for h is security and for keeping order. 

" The mayor replied that he was sure of the sentiments of the majority 
of the population in regard to the Valabregue family, and that he would 
be answerable for quiet and order." 


Chapter LVII. 


The Aurore, the Petite RepuUique, and the Steele, of Paris, published 
on September 21st the following declaration from Captain Dreyfus: 

The Government of the Republic restores me my liberty. It is noth- 
ing to me without honor. From this day forth I shall continue to seek 
the reparation of the judicial error of which I am still the victim. I wish 
that France as a whole should know by a final judgment that I am inno- 
cent. My heart will not be at rest imtil tliere is no longer a Frenchman 
who imputes to me the abominable crime which another has committed. 

Alfked Deeyfus. 

The report of the Minister of War, General the Marquis de Gallifet, to 
the President of the Eepublic proposing the pardon of Dreyfus was as fol- 

Monsieur le President: — On September 9th the court-martial of 
Pennes condemned Dreyfus, by five votes against two, to ten years' deten- 
tion, and by a majority it granted extenuating circumstances. After ap- 
pealing to the Council of Revision Dreyfus withdrew his application. The 
verdict has become definitive, and henceforth it partakes of the authority of 
the law, before which every one ought to bow. The highest function of 
the Government is to enforce respect for the decisions of justice without 
distinction and without reservation. Resolved to fulfil this duty, it ought 
also to take into account what clemency and the public interest counsel. 
The verdict of the court-martial itself, which admitted extenuating cir- 
cumstances, and the desire immediately expressed that the sentence might 
be mitigated are so many indications that ought to solicit attention. As 
the result of the judgment pronounced in 1894 Dreyfus has undergone five 
years' transportation. This judgment was annulled on June 3, 1899, and 
a penalty less severe both in its nature and its duration has been applied. 
If one deducts from the ten years' detention the five years served on the 


lie du Diable — and it cannot be otherwise — Dreyfus will have undergone 
five years' of transportation, and ought to undergo five years' of detention. 
It has been suggested whether it was not possible to assimilate transporta- 
tion to solitary confinement in a prison, and in that case he would have 
almost completely purged his sentence. Legislation does not seem to per- 
mit this. It follows, therefore, that Dreyfus ought to undergo a highei 
penalty than that to which he has been actually condemned. 

It results from information obtained that the health of the condemned 
man has been seriously compromised, and that h*^, could not, without the 
greatest peril, bear a prolonged detention. Apart from considerations of 
a nature to arouse anxiety, others of a more general order tend to the 
same conclusions. A higher political interest — the necessity of calling up 
all their powers always exacted from governments after difficult crises and 
in regard to certain orders of facts — suggests measures of clemency or of 
oblivion. The Government would ill respond to the desire of a country 
desirous of pacification if, by the acts which it behooves it to accomplish, 
whether on its own initiative or by a proposal to Parliament, it did not 
take steps to efface all traces of a painful conflict. It is for you, Monsieur 
le President, by an act of supreme humanity, to give the first pledge of the 
work of pacification which public opinion demands, and which the welfare 
of the Eepublic dictates. 

For these reasons I have the honor to propose for your signature the 
following decree. 

General de Gallifet, Minister of "War. 

The decree in question was thus worded : 

"Article 1. — There is accorded to Alfred Dreyfus remission of the 
rest of the penalty of ten years' of detention pronounced against him by 
decree of the court-martial of Eennes dated September 9, 1899, and also 
of military degradation. 

"Article 2. — The Minister of War is charged with the execution of 
the present decree." 

General de Gallifet also sent to the military governors of Paris and 
Lyons, as well as to army corps commanders, the following general order: 

To the Army:— The incident is closed. The military judges, the 
object of universal respect, have delivered their verdict in complete inde- 
pendence. We have, without any sort of reservation, bowed down before 
their decree. We shall likewise bow dowa before the act which a senti- 


tnent of profound pity has dictated to the President of the Eepublic. It 
is impossible that any question of reprisals of any sort whatever should 
henceforth arise. So I repeat, the incident is closed. I ask you, and if 
need be I should order you, to forget the past in order to think only of the 
future. With you, who are all my comrades, I cry heartily "Vive 
I'armee ! " the army which belongs to no party but only to France. 


Germany, on the whole, was pleased at the news of the compromise 
arrived at in the Dreyfus case. It was recognized with deep regret at 
Berlin that the unfortunate officer, by withdrawing his notice of appeal, 
abandoned, for the time being, his hope of securing a legal and formal vin- 
dication of his innocence, but the opinion was held that the trial at Eennes 
convinced all who were open to conviction, and that the main things to be 
considered after the trial were the tranquillity of France and the health of 
the prisoner. 

The clerical Kolnische Volks-Zeitung, which had regarded the Dreyfus 
case with almost complete indifference, considered that it was an act of 
patriotism on the part of Dreyfus to accept the pardon. There were not 
wanting voices, however, which denounced the compromise as cowardly 
and even unwise. 

The Cologne Gazette regarded the pardon as "an official recognition 
of the cowardly and disgraceful judgment at Rennes as the scornful an- 
swer of a common court-martial to the plain order of the court of highest 
instance in the country," and as "a victory of the military party over the 
civil institutions." 

The Vossische Zeitung thought that the only excuse for the action of 
the French Government was that it was anxious to place the person of 
Dreyfus in safety as soon as possible, for fear of the consequences if an 
anti-Dreyfus ministry should come into power. 


Chapter LVIU. 


When the French Minister of War, General the Marquis de Gallifet, 
announced that the Dreyfus " incident " was closed, he probably believed 
he was stating the truth. But he differs in this respect from the famous 
Paris correspondent of the London Times, M. de Blowitz, who, under 
date of September 24th, telegraphed to his paper as follows : 

"For the honor of humanity and of France we must not fancy that, 
as General de Gallifet has said in a phrase which would seem to have 
been written on a drumhead, ' L'incident est clos.' No; the heat of the 
battle, perhaps, is over, but the incident is not ended, for the simple reason 
that it is not an incident but a colossal chapter the episodes in which are 
stages in the history of civilization, and which is bound to continue if hu- 
manity does not intend to abdicate its right to progress. For the foreigner 
as well as for France the sacred interests cf justice, which are our com- 
mon patrimony, are at stake. Whoever deals an arbitrary blow at justice 
is nothing more nor less than a malefactor. He is like a man who fells 
an immense tree across a railway line to stop the progress of the train at 
the risk of killing all the passengers. No ; neither for the foreigner nor 
for France is the incident ended. The foreigner, it is true, has not him- 
self to aim at reprisals, but in his shoulder-to-shoulder advance with the 
rest of humanity he has certain rights and certain laws to defend. It 
would be to our common shame if after these five years of anxiety and 
doubt, if after these two years of anguish and of battle, we were to say 
calmly to one another, seated in the shadow of the beech-trees, ' Now that 
the prisoner is at liberty let us wash our hands of the whole matter and 
take breath.' No, let us not lie down in idleness, content with the work 
already done. 

" In the first place, Alfred Dreyfus, although no longer in prison, still 
remains condemned in the eyes of the law, mortally wounded in his honor, 


and, whatever the disdain manifested by public opinion throughout the 
workl for the yerJict of these Eennes judges, who had not the slightest 
idea that their mission was to rehabilitate before civilization and history 
the honor of military justice, Dreyfus has, nevertheless, come forth from 
Eennes gravely touched in his honor, ' sans lequel,' as he said, ' la liberty 
ne m'est rien.' The foreign Press, to be sure, has not to intervene in the 
efforts of Dreyfus to obtain the annulling of this verdict. Such a result, 
although not admitted by his peers, would efface the judicial stain which 
still remains upon his honor, and, as for his military judges, it is perfectly 
clear that their mental attitude is so utterly different from that of other 
reflecting beings that it is futile to appeal to them in the hope of obtaining 
a verdict in conformity with the ordinary principles of human justice. 
It is, nevertheless, necessary for the greater good of civilization that human 
society as a whole should draw from this event, which General de Galli- 
fet calls an incident, such cojuclusions as will hasten our common progress 
and remove from the path all the obstacles in the way. It is, further- 
more, imperative that history should treasure up the names of those who 
have with such effrontery conspired against truth, and have succeeded in 
transforming Justice into a strumpet obedient to their every best, instead 
of allowing her to remain the virgin, haughty and serene, ' who renders 
verdicts and not services.' 

" I venture to hope that my readers will not blame me for not taking 
my ease in the tranquillity of a work well done, and that they will allow 
me to point out to them that in France, as elsewhere, the men ready to 
defend insulted justice and outraged truth are still numerous and alert. 
This morning's Figaro contained a letter from M. Jonnart to M.Corn^ly, 
and I extract from it certain passages which may serve as the eloquent 
conclusion of what I have been saying, for M. Jonnart, a liberal-minded 
man, enamoured of justice, belongs to the group of a chosen few, to the 
band of young public men who are the hope of the Eepublic, those in 
whom the encroachments of ambition have not yet had time to stifle the 
voice of the heart, which makes itself heard simultaneously with that of 
reason. Although still young, M. Jonnart has already climbed well to 
the top in political life. It is he who, as one of the members of the com- 
mittee of the Progressist section of the Centre, wrote to M. M^liue a few 
days ago a very plain-spoken letter in reply to the ex-prime minister's 


effort to add one more embarrassment to those in which France is now in> 
volved. M. M^line desired the immediate convocation of the Chamber, 
hoping to pile up a few ruins, on the summit of which he would take his 
place as master of the situation with his portfolio under his arm. 
"Let me give now certain extracts from M. Jonnart's letter: 
"'The incomprehensible verdict of the Eennes court-martial, against 
which good sense, logic, and the law itself protest, becomes the most strik- 
ing justification of your articles, and condemns those whom it pretends to 
save. For three years I have been unable through ill-health to ascend the 
tribune of the Chamber, and I am quite unable to express how much I 
have suffered at not being able to tell in public all my anxieties, my pro- 
found pain and distress, and at not being able to put my political friends 
on their guard against the indifference or the want of foresight of their 
chiefs. There have been moments when I have ardently desired that 
Dreyfus should be found guilty. I have read 'everything, studied every- 
thing, examined everything, with the hope of finding the proof of his 
guilt. I refused to believe in the odious machinations in this abominable 
crime. This proof I have not found ; it does not exist. I was then seized 
with a poignant doubt, and then, when my conviction had been formed 
on the documents themselves so that it could not be shaken, I felt that 
something had given way within me, and an evil wind seemed to be car- 
rying away the ideals of my youth. For I am a Eepublican and always 
have been so. I believe in the Eepublic — that is to say, in justice and in 
liberty. I have fought for these ideas in a modest place in the Eepubli- 
can ranks, but with a passionate sincerity, with a joyous spirit and enthu- 
siasm no longer known to the young men of to-day, buoyed up by the in- 
domitable hope of a better humanity. 

" ' Alas ! does not what has taken place during the last three years in 
our unfortunate country make one doubt the progress of the human spirit ? 
For me it is the shattering of certain illusions which had remained persis- 
tent amid the agitations of my political life. The barbarians who con- 
ducted the savage campaign which has led up to the verdict of Eennes 
may make merry, their joy will not be long. I have written this to a few 
friends many a time ; you have said the same for yours in marvellous arti- 
cles in which you blended all your heart with all your talent. The Drey- 
fus affair is only an incident, but the audacious enterprise for which it 


has served as a pretext will have political consequences as to which the 
moderates of the Conservative and the Eepublican parties have made the 
great mistake in not concerning themselves. They will not say in excuse 
that they could not anticipate them. Ah no; these shortsighted politi- 
cians have been sufficiently warned. . . . 

" ' . . . The insensate persons who have revived in this country the 
racial and religious wars cherish the illusion of keeping the conflagration 
within bounds. The sectarian fools who tremble with joy at the cry 
"Mort aux juifs! " and let loose civil war with the secret hope of stopping 
it at the exact point where their appetites and rancors were satisfied, have 
sown the wind to reap the whirlwind. And I note with painful surprise 
that Denys Cochin and many another Catholic like him whom I like and 
for whom I have a profound respect, did not utter in the thick of the bat- 
tle, I will not say a cry of indignation — that we did not ask of them — but 
even a cry of pity. The religious bodies dispersed in 1880 have been re- 
established almost everywhere, that of the Jesuits in particular. Only 
a short time ago a bill intended to enforce the famous decrees, and this 
time to apply them seriously, would have disturbed nobody and would 
have piteously failed. Now, you may imagine, it will have some chance 
of success. And, indeed, what force is given by recent events and by the 
propaganda of the Libre Pinhole and of the monkish leaguers of the Croix 
to the arguments of those who consider that the Republic, like the mon- 
archy, cannot permit to thrive in its midst certain unauthorized religious 
bodies, certain rich and powerful associations, unrecognized by the State, 
completely outside its control, and constantly conspiring against its secu- 
rity and public order — incorrigible conspirators, beaten on May 16th, 
beaten with Boulanger, beaten always, yet always returning to the assault 
of Eepublican institutions with the same sophisms, the same pretensions, 
the same ambitions, and the same weapons — defamation and falsehood.' " 


Chapter LIX. 

A HISTORY of the Dreyfus case would be incomplete without a sketch 
of General the Marquis de Gallifet, the Minister of War at the time of the 
Eennes court-martial, and "the Hope of France." This combination of 
Eoyalist and Eepublican, gallant soldier and aristocrat, stern disciplinarian 
and statesman, was born in Paris, on January 25, 1830. He entered the 
French army in April, 1848, and reached the rank of sub-lieutenant De- 
cember 30, 1857. He was promoted captain in 18G0, major of cavalry 
in 1863, lieutenant-colonel in 1867, and general of division in 1875. 
De Gallifet (whose name, in some books of reference, is spelled Galliffet) 
served with great distinction in the Crimea, before Sebastopol, where he 
was commended for his bravery. The general was badly wounded by the 
explosion of a shell at Puebla, in 1863, during the Mexican war, and 
distinguished himself in the Algerian campaigns of 1860, 1864, 1865, and 

In the Franco-Prussian war General de Gallifet served with the Army 
of the Pthine, and won the admiration of the invaders of France while at 
the head of the Fifth Regiment of African Hussars. He was captured by 
the Prussians at the battle of Sedan and was imprisoned in Germany. 
After the Franco-Prussian War, De Gallifet was made a general of brigade, 
and took a most active part in the second siege of Paris, then held by the 
troops of the Commune, and in the suppression of the Communards. 
Upon that occasion he acted with the greatest severity, but the circum- 
stances seem to have justified him in so doing. When his victorious 
troops entered Paris, he caused thousands of Communards, caught red- 
handed, to be shot on the spot, and restored order by the unlimited use of 
rifle, bayonet, and rapid-fire gun. Any man of the Communards caught 
wearing a uniform, part of a uniform, or even military shoes, was promptly 
executed, and the hands of all the prisoners captured were examined for 


powder marks. If such traces of resistance to the troops of the Versailles 
Government were found, the curt order, "Shoot him," was issued, and a 
few minutes later the man so condemned was dead. 

In 1871 General de Gallifet was sent to Africa, and took a prominent 
part in the pacification of the insurgent tribes. He commanded the 
El-Goliah expedition, and, overcoming the most serious obstacles ia the 
v»'ay of the transportation of troops, he executed a rapid march through 
the desert and vanquished the Arabs. 

Later, De Gallifet, who had become a great friend of M. Gambetta, 
was appointed to command the Eighth Army Corps; in 1875 he w^as 
made general of division, and in 1879 he was given the command of the 
Ninth Army Co:^ps. He was promoted to the command of the Twelfth 
Army Corps in 1882, and in 1885 was made a member of the Supreme 
Council of War. 

During the autumn of 1891, General de Gallifet conducted his part 
of the army manoeuvres so brilliantly that the Military Medal, a high 
distinction in France, was conferred upon him. After conducting the 
fall manoeuvres of 1894, the general retired from active service. 

General de Gallifet was decorated with the cross of the Legion of 
Honor in 1855, was made officer of the Legion of Honor in 1863, com- 
mander of the Legion of Honor in 1873, grand officer of the Legion of 
Honor in 1880, and grand cross of the Legion of Honor in 1887. He 
has also been inspector-general of many army corps. 

De Gallifet succeeded M. do Freycinet as Minister of War on June 22, 
1899, becoming part of the non-partisan Cabinet formed to handle the crisis 
in France caused by the agitation for and against Dreyfus. His advent 
upon the scene apparently calmed the passions of all parties. Although 
originally a Eoyalist, De Gallifet is above all a loyal soldier, and all par- 
ties, remembering his extreme severity, to put it mildly, in suppressing 
the Commune, recognized that for once France had the right man in the 
right place, a man who might be counted upon fearlessly and relent- 
lessly to uphold law and order, even if he had to make the guttens of the 
French capital, for the second time, run with human blood. 

As to his Royalist leanings, it is an open question as to whether the 
kid-gloved but iron-handed soldier would not handle the followers of the 
Duke of Orleans, if they attempted a revolutionary movement, as roughly 


as he handled the Communards in the past. In any case an officer and a 
gentleman in every sense of the words, De Gallifet is counted upon by his 
admirers to uphold the regularly constituted authorities in France at all 

With supreme confidence in his own nerve, De Gallifet looked with 
quiet scorn upon the turbulent parties of France, and openly defied the 
anti-Dreyfusites after the verdict, by promptly promoting Captain Frey- 
staetter and Major Hartman, the two officers who gave the most fearless, 
outspoken testimony in favor of Dreyfus, and in announcing that after 
investigation he had found no ground for suspicion of Colonel Picquart's 
conduct of the Intelligence Department. This was practically saying that 
Freystaetter and Hartman had, in the general's firm opinion, testified to 
the truth, and that Picquart was an honest man. 

It is said, in addition, that the general's private relations with ambas- 
sadors and others enabled him to convince himself that Dreyfus was 

This firm stand of the general won him the respect, at least, of his 
worst enemies, and people throughout the world began to look toward him 
as likely to be the Moses capable of leading France out of the wilderness 
of corruption, incompetency, and • general rottenness into which she had 
drifted, step by step, with open eyes, during past years. France, her best 
friends know, needs a strong man at the helm of State — a brilliant man, 
a man who can excite the admiration of the world, a man who can com- 
mand respect at home and abroad. Such a man is General the Marquis 
de Gallifet. As Minister of War he has proved very successful. Will 
France recognize this by bestowing further honors upon him? Let us 
wait and see what the future has in store for the gallant soldier-statesman. 


Chapter LX. 


The "pardon " extended to Dreyfus was considered by a large section 
of the Austrian public to be a not unworthy counterpart to the verdict of 
treason with extenuating circumstances given by the Eennes court-martial. 
It was classed in Vienna as a compromise of a not particularly elevated 
or manly character, which went to show that the ministerial champions of 
justice in Paris had at least one point in common with the instruments of 
military violence at Piennes. Both were lacking in the courage of their 
opinions. The general feeling on the subject in Austria found unreserved 
expression in the FremdenUatty which remarked that the compromises 
effected involved a grave depreciation of moral dignity for all the princi- 
pal factors concerned, adding : 

" The Government in adopting this expedient proved that it had not 
the courage to take the straight road and proceed to the revision or cassa- 
tion of the sentence. It remains to be seen whether the advantages of 
that expedient will outweigh the danger of such a confession of weak- 

In the opiHion of the Vienna semi-official organ, the main object of 
the French Cabinet was to detach the army from the enemies of the Ee- 
public, also saying that it was concerned for the fate of the Exhibition, 
which it did not wish to see prejudiced or endangered by subversive 

In Eome, the liberation of Dreyfus was hailed with general satisfac- 
tion, and was interpreted as an official disavowal of the iniquitous sentence 
of Eennes. 

The London Times, otherwise the "Thunderer," commenting upon the 
release of Dreyfus, said : 

" The release of Alfred Dreyfus from his long and barbarous captivity 


was accomplished yesterday, not as a public act of reparation, but as if it 
were something of which the Government that 'pardoned ' him might pos- 
sibly be ashamed. In the early hours of the morning M. Dreyfus was 
removed from his prison at Eennes, and, in company with his brother, 
who has stood by him so faithfully all through this cruel ordeal, left for a 
destination that is at present unknown. The persecution of an innocent 
man — practically declared to be so by the inept judgment of the Eennes 
court-martial and by the action of the chief of the State — has thus been 
exhibited, st last, to the world in its scandalous unrighteousness. It be- 
gan in illegal methods of procedure, adopted, as the inquiry at Eennes has 
shown, to secure the conviction of the accused, and carried out by illegal 
methods of physical and moral torture from which even mediaeval brutali- 
ty might have recoiled. It is to be hoped, for the sake of France herself, 
that the victim of a plot as base and odious as any recorded in history will 
now have at least a chance of recovering a certain measure of health and 
strength in retirement and seclusion. Whether or not M. Dreyfus will 
proceed to an appeal before the Court of Cassation for the annulling of the 
Eennes verdict we cannot say. The moral effect of that pitiable decision 
has already been destroyed, not only by the force of public opinion, but 
by the resolution of the French Government not to act upon it. At the 
same time it is felt that justice is outraged when an innocent man has to 
slink away vmder cover of a 'pardon, ' while the vile conspirators who did 
their best to send him back to Devil's Island are even now swaggering 
about in their uniforms and their cassocks as if they had the fortunes of 
France in their polluted hands. 

" France will bitterly regret the apathy with which she has treated the 
most abominable of crimes, the systematic perversion of justice to secure 
the ruin of an individual. She has displayed the backwardness of her ju- 
risprudence and the weakness of her moral fibre. In an interesting letter 
Sir Herbert Stephen points out that France is still in the stage out of 
which this country passed hundreds of years ago, when a trial was based, 
not on evidence, but on 'compurgation.' Unfortunately, the moral basis 
of compurgation, the truthful backing of a man by his honest neighbors, 
does not exist in a corrupt modern society. 

"The effect of what has been said and done at Eennes on the minds of 
independent foreigners is strikingly shown in a letter from M. Zakrevsky, 
a well-known Eussian jurist and a member of the Imperial Senate, which 
is the High Court of the Empire. M. Zakrevsky has studied the proceed- 
ings at Eennes, and is appalled to see what they mean. The conclusion 
he draws from ' this unheard-of spectacle ' is that ' modern French society 


hag definitely fallen from the rank it occupied among civilized peoples. 
Where the sentiment of justice is atrophied by the intensity of political 
and religious passions grafted on to a monstrous national vanity passing 
itself off for patriotism, there is, I contend, no room left for the moral ele- 
ments iudispensable to a well-grdered form of society.' Nor will M. Za- 
krevsky admit that only the five unjust judges of Rennes and their chiefs 
should be held responsible ' for the iniquitous acts which have revolted 
the whole world.' lie dwells, not without force, on the lamentable want 
of moral courage displayed by the nation. ' Take one iustauce amongst 
many. Sse how men who call themselves statesmen, who belong to the 
cream of society, like the Casimir-Periers, the Freyciuets, when called 
upon to give evidence, to tell the whole truth, instead of throwing light 
upon important facts, are content to fence, or make oracular speeches. 
They think above all of themselves ; their chief anxiety is not to depreci- 
ate their own value in the eyes of their great audience, — i.e., of the coun- 
try which listens to them.' Just as little does the Russian jurist mince 
his words concerning the motives which have led France to seek the alli- 
ance of his own country: 'Unable in her vanity and thirst for prestige to 
recognize in her defeats of 1870-71 all that was irremediable and even 
just, protesting that she would never accept the Treaty of Frankfort as 
final, prating of her re-vindications, of her hopes, without venturing to 
strike a blow, France has gradually cut herself adrift in the helplessness 
of political disorder from the other Western nations, to which, with their 
great liberal traditions, the ties of centuries united her, and she has sunk 
amorously into the arms of Russia, of a country which represents and 
practices more than ever principles entirely opposed to those which France 
boasts of holding. From the Russian alliance she has inevitably and logi- 
cally drifted into anti-Semitism, into anti-Protestantism, into oppression of 
the weak, into a recrudescence of brutal militarism, and, finally, into the 
Dreyfus affair, crowned by the proceedings at Rennes.' 

" No critics in this country or elsewhere have written anything so cruel 
and crushing as these and other even more uncomplimentary messages, for 
which we prefer to refer our readers to the French text. Yet it is plain 
that these views, so decidedly in unison with those of the great majority 
of Germans, Austrians, and Italians, as well as of Englishmen and Ameri- 
cans, are shared by Russians of every school. M. Zakrevsky is a Liberal ; 
but a very eminent representative of old Russian ideas, M. Pobiedonost- 
zeff, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, has come to the same conclusion 
about the Dreyfus case. He has said that ' for all impartial observers the 
proceedings at Rennes proved tlie innocence of Captain Dreyfus,' and has 


expressed his agreement with the contention of The Times, borne out by 
many independent testimonies, that the root of the mischief lies in the false 
education of the young in France. Even the most rabid anti-Dreyfusards 
will hardly contend, we suppose, that the Eussians have also joined the 
great ' cosmopolitan syndicate of treason.' " 



Chapter LXL 


There were many remarkable exhibitions of feeling throughout the 
world after the second conviction of Dreyfus, and a number of strong state- 
ments were made on the subject. 

Archbishop Ireland, at St. Paul, Minn., said in an interview Septem- 
ber 13th: 

" It is my belief that public meetings in America such as it is proposed 
to hold for the purpose of protesting against the sentence of the Eennes 
court-martial are untimely, unfair to France, and likely to breed regretta- 
ble ill-feeling between that country and our own. 

" I shall not deny that I have always had in my heart deep sympathy 
for the unfortunate officer who has been under trial in Eennes, and that I 
had wished and hoped that the sentence of the court would have been one 
of acquittal. 

" But it is another question to face the verdict of the court the moment 
that verdict has been declared with the assertion that it is plainly against 
truth, and that the court from which it issues is guilty of base injustice 
and sacrilegious perjury. And it is, still more so, another question to lay 
upon France the crime of the verdict, if crime there be in it, and throw at 
a whole people and at their Government insulting epithets. Let us wait. 

" This whole matter belongs to the internal life and to the internal ad- 
ministration of France, and international courtesy as well as justice bids 
us talk about it very carefully and very slowly. France is a proud, sensi- 
tive nation. She will deeply resent, as it is her right, undue criticism 
and hasty judgment of her acts by a foreign people, and especially will 
she resent, as it is surely her right, any uncalled-for interference with her 
internal administration and any imprudent challenging of her national 

" France has been our friend for ages. She was our friend when no 
other nation befriended us. She is our friend to-day. She is a sister 


republie. We should pause long and seriously before blaming, suspecting, 
or offending France. 

" I can well understand the present happenings in America. The 
American people are most easily roused to sentiments of justice and hu- 
manity. Prudence, however, is the queen of all virtues, and we should 
strive to make it ours. 

" In what I say I speak as an American, for what I believe the good 
of America. I make no plea for France, although, because I know France, 
I love her despite her faults, and I hope for her, despite her perils." 

Governor Theodore Roosevelt, of the State of New York, in a speech 
at Walton, N. Y., September 13th, remarked: 

" Something recently happened which I want to speak about. I think 
it a rare thing for the whole nation to watch the trial of a single citizen of 
another nation. We have watched with indignation and regret the trial 
of Captain Dreyfus. It was less Dreyfus on trial than those who tried 
him. We should draw lessons from the trial. It was due in part to bit- 
ter religious prejudices of the French people. Those who have ever wa- 
vered from the doctrine of the separation of Church and State should pon- 
der upon what has happened. Try to encourage every form of religious 
effort. Beware and do not ever oppose any man for any reason except 
worth or want of it. You cannot benefit one class by pulling another class 

In Washington, September 12th, a mass meeting was held at the Ma- 
sonic Temple to protest against the verdict of the Eenues court-martial 
in the Dreyfus case. The speakers included men of all creeds — Jews, 
Protestants, and Catholics. The meeting adopted a set of resolutions 
affirming belief in the innocence of Dreyfus, condemning the proceedings 
of the court-martial, and pledging those present to use every lawful and 
proper means to prevent the co-operation of this country in the Paris 
Exposition. The resolutions, after expressing sympathy with Dreyfus and 
his family, continued : 

" Remembering all the ties and traditions that bind us to France, and 
Hot forgetful of the glorious days of Lafayette and Rochambeau and of 
the gallant efforts of Picquart, Zola, Labori, and Demange, we do not de- 
spair of final victory for justice. We invoke all American citizens to co- 


operate to the end that justice may finally be done and the sentiments of 
the American people brought home to the Government and the citizens of 
France. In the mean time we will take measures as citizens to emphasize 
by word and act our deliberate intention not to co-operate in the Paris 
Exposition of next year, and do whatever is legal and proper to prevent 
our Government from official recognizing said Exposition." 

The resolutions concluded by calling on the President of the United 
States to convey to the French Government, in whatever form he might 
deem proper, the views of the American people on the Dreyfus verdict, as 
voiced by that country and other meetings throughout the country. 

Eeference was made in one of the resolutions to the testimony of ex- 
Minister Lebon before the court-martial, in which he said that the rigor- 
ous treatment of Dreyfus was due in part to the understanding that there 
was a plan on foot to rescue the prisoner by a party of Americans. The 
resolution called upon Secretary of State Hay to obtain an official copy of 
this testimony "in order to refute this slander." 

President McKinley did not take any action in the matter, as it was 
impossible for him to do so, as pointed out at the time by the New York 
Times, which said, editorially : 

" If France were to suffer some national calamity, as she did in the death 
of her president, it would be quite proper for Mr. McKinley to express the 
sorrow and sympathy that we should all feel or to forward through our 
Ambassador the resolutions of any public bodies. But when it comes to 
criticism and protest our people must content themselves with individual 
utterance or with the utterance of and through the press. It is an ac- 
cepted rule in all the relations of governments with each other that each 
is entirely independent in the conduct of its internal affairs, and none is at 
liberty to comment officially thereon unless prepared to take the conse- 
quences of an unfriendly act. There must always be a distinct reason in 
the peculiar interests of the criticising power to make criticism even plaus- 
ible, and the power criticised need make no excuse for resentment. 

" Our Government has no opinion as to the Dreyfus case, and has no 
right to any, any more than France would have a right to an opinion in 
regard to something that might arise in this country to offend the moral 
sense of its people — the lynching of colored men, for instance, or the 
whitewashing of the late Secretary of AVar. It does not by any means fol- 
low that the American people are not entitled to have a perfectly clear 


opinion on the subject and to express it in any form they choose, except 
through the Executive. As a matter of fact the American people have 
formed and expressed an opinion to which France will in its own way and 
in its own time listen. At the moment it is not pleasant to hear, but it 
is inspired by a sense of justice and it is not really unfriendly. There is 
no reason why we should conceal it. There is every reason why, soberly 
and temperately, we should express, explain, and enforce it. In the long 
run it will have its effect, and the effect will be salutary." 

In New York City there was much indignation against the verdict of 
the Eennes court-martial, and the Municipal Assembly, September 12th, 
adopted the following resolution unanimously : 

" Whereas, Since the last session of the Municipal Assembly the intel- 
ligent people of the world have been startled by the report of the convic- 
tion of Captain Alfred Dreyfus ; and 

" Whereas, We feel that his conviction was unjust, and not sustained 
by the reported facts and testimony — 

"Resolved, That the Municipal Assembly of the city of New York ex- 
tends to Captain Dreyfus its profound sympathy, and that in the interest 
of justice and humanity and of republican institutions this Assembly ex- 
presses its hope that this great injustice be corrected by the French Eepub- 
lic to the end that truth and justice may yet prevail." 

Liberty Hall, East Houston Street, New York City, was crowded on 
September 12th with Jewish residents of the East Side, gathered under the 
auspices of the Englander Family Society, a benevolent and charitable 
organization, to protest against the verdict rendered in the Dreyfus trial. 

The president of the society is J. Spero, and the secretary Irving Kline. 
Osias Mailer presided at the meeting. A letter was read from Alexander 
S. Eosenthal, ex-United States Consul to Italy, in which he wrote : 

"France has committed a crime by her unjust verdict rendered against 
Captain Dreyfus. The entire civilized world is convinced that the verdict 
is based on bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice." 

The following resolutions were adopted by a unanimous vote: 

" Resolved, That through the United States Ambassador in France we 
appeal to the President of the French Eepublic, that he right the wrong 


done to an iuuocent man, nat by pardoning Captain Dreyfus, but liy inter- 
vening to secure for him a new trial ; and should this request be refused, 
"Resolved, That we appeal to President McKinley that he should take 
measures to prevent the forwarding of any national exhibits by the United 
States at the French Exposition in Paris in 1900." 

The Central Eepublicau Club, of New York City, at a meeting Septem- 
ber 12th, unaniomusly passed the following resolution: 

" JVlierccts, In common with the whole civilized world, we have ob- 
served with amazement the extraordinary trial concluded at Ptcnnes and 
its final judgment, and since it is the sacred interest of all men to defend 
and maintain courts for the administration of justice in any country which 
is frequently visited by foreigners, that lives and property may be secure 
under the full intercourse of our times, we declare our unqualitied censure 
of the hateful methods of injustice which were employed to obtain the 
second unrighteous condemnation of Alfred Dreyfus by a French court- 
martial, and W8 declare that such methods and such tribunals are a per- 
version of justice and are more fitted for barbarous lands than for a coun- 
try boasting to possess the civilization of the French Republic.'' 

A copy of the resolutions was mailed to Mme. Dreyfus. 
The State G.A.E. reunion of Nebraska, September 13th, adopted the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, As a convention of soldiers who have fought in wars under- 
taken in the interests of a common humanity, having for their object the 
redress of wrongs perpetrated on the weak and defenceless, we desire to 
express our abhorrence of a verdict, as in the case of Captain Dreyfus, 
that consigns an innocent man to ignominy, shame, and pain, and that be- 
speaks the spirit of a bigoted past rather than that of an enlightened pres- 

The following message was sent to President McKinley by the Episco- 
pal clergy of San Francisco, September 12th: 

"The clericus of the Protestant Episcopal Church of San Francisco, 
profoundly moved by the verdict in the Dreyfus case, most earnestly re- 
quest your excellency to take such action toward a reversal of the sen- 
tence as is possible and compatible with the diplomatic relations existing 
between the two nations." 


The following message of sympathy was telegraphed to Mme. Alfred 
Dreyfus at Eennes by the summer residents of Northeast Harbor, Maine : 

" Madame : The heart of the whole world is toward you. The trial has 
made evident the innocence and the noble character of ^our husband, and 
the great public, which has followed this struggle with anguish, now ren- 
ders to him and to his children the honor for which he has struggled till 
now, for which he is still struggling in France." 

The message was signed by "William Croswell Doane, Bishop of Al- 
bany; S. K. Doane, Eliza G. D. Gardiner, Winthrop Sargent, Aim^ Sar- 
gent, Ellen W. Boyd, Margaret Condit, Marguerite Junod, Theodora "W. 
Woosley, B. W. Frazier, Arthur Hugh Frazier, the Eev. Dr. W. R. Hun- 
tington, Rector of Grace Church, New York ; K. F. Gray, James T. Gar- 
diner, Andrew L. Wheelwright, Sarah C. Wheelwright; A. de Viti de 
]\Iarco, Professor of Finance in the University of Rome; E. de Viti de 
Marco, Katherine Dunham, Ellen Vaughan, George W. Folsom, Etheldred 
Folsom, L. L. M. Limoges, Helen Ellis, and Dr. Theodore Dunham. 

As a result of the feeling of sympathy with Dreyfus at Wichita, Kan- 
sas, Miss Sadie Joseph, a beautiful Jewish girl, was nominated, September 
13th, for Queen of the Flower Parade at the Fall Carnival. In a few 
hours votes enough were cast for Miss Joseph to put her in the lead of the 
other candidates. Voting for other candidates was almost stopped, and 
enthusiasm for Miss Joseph ran over the city like wildfire. 

In London, England, the Dreyfus Movement Auxiliary Society was 
organized soon after the Eennes verdict became known, about one hundred 
prominent Jews becoming members. Dr. A. Zuhn was elected president, 
and committees on subscriptions and speakers for mass meetings were ap- 

The London correspondent of the Manchester (England) Guardian, 
telegraphed to his paper, September 11th: 

" I have known the East End ghetto many years, yet I never eaw it 
exhibit such evident signs of woe and bereavement. The very mourning 
worn by both men and women seemed to indicate that they were suffering 
great personal sorrow. The news arrived about an hour before the termi- 
nation of the Jewish Sabbath. In that hour there was a great outpouring 
of people, all of whom expressed sympathy with the prisoner. A venera- 



ble rabbi assured me that he had never seen the community, rich and poor 
alike, so moved. ' This,' said the rabbi to me, * is the bitterest day of 
modern Judaism.' " 

Esterhazy, in an interview in a London afternoon paper, September 
11th, was quoted as saying: 

"Dreyfus was justly condemned, as the inevitable result of the evi- 
dence collected by General Mercier. This bore conviction to the minds 
of the judges, and the court-martial, following the previous finding, declared 
Dreyfus guilty and I innocent. I believe the sentence was in accordance 
with an understanding with the Government. Dreyfus is in a position 
to claim a reduction of his sentence by one-half. The whole business was 
a farce, arranged in advance, and doubtless he will soon be liberated." 

The Jewish Day of Atonement was celebrated on September 14th, in 
London, with Dreyfus demonstrations, especially in the East End. A 
procession with a banner inscribed "Dreyfus, the Martyr. All the Civil- 
ized World Demands His Instant Eelease," marched through Spitalfields. 

The Great Synagogue in London, September 14th, presented a striking 
epectacle. It was crowded from morning until night, and thousands were 
unable to enter. 

Dr. Adler, the chief rabbi, delivered a sermon referring to the Dreyfus 
case. He said what was morally wrong could not be politically right. 
Eight, justice, honor, and mercy belonged to the immutable law. False- 
hood and injustice might prosper for a time, but certain retribution would 
follow those who forsook the path of right and justice. It had been so 
with the colossal empires of antiquity, and with Spain in our day. 

Dr. Adler declared that Saturday was not, as had been said, the bitter- 
est day in the history of modern Judaism on account of the Dreyfus ver- 
dict. It was a memorable penitential Sabbath, ever to be remembered 
with the keenest disappointment, in which all felt the deepest pity for the 
prolonged agony of Dreyfus and his wife, but it was not a day of unalloyed 
bitterness for Jews. To France it was a day more disastrous than Water- 
loo, more humiliating than Sedan. France, which first allowed to the 
Jews the rights of citizenship, had defiled the golden vessels of God's tem- 
ple, and branded an innocent man as an odious traitor to the country he 
loved so well. Even in France every one had not been hypnotized by the 

unholy blend of clericalism and militarism. 



"Let the majesty of the law be vindicated," he concluded, "and let 
them not seek a pardon, which should be rejected with scorn ; for where 
no crime was committed, how can a pardon be granted ? " 

Throughout New York City, the news of the pardon of Dreyfus was 
hailed with satisfaction. This was particularly so on the east side and in 
the French quarter. 

The feeling in favor of Dreyfus has always been strong among the 
French residentg in New York, and the rejoicing over the prisoner's par- 
don was general. 

At Temple Emanu-El, after the services of the Feast of Tabernacles, 
Rabbi Gottheil, in his sermon, commenting on the fact that this was one 
of the three Jewish festivals on which it was a divine duty to " be happy 
and rejoice," deplored the misfortune of Captain Dreyfus, whose situation 
prevented him from fulfilling the divine behest. He fervently hoped, 
however, that justice would soon prevail. 

At this point his associate, Dr. Silberman, handed Eabbi Gottheil a 
cablegram which contained the news of Dreyfus's pardon. Eabbi Gottheil 
read the message to the congregation, who demonstrated their satisfaction 
by loud applause. 

Dr. Gottheil uttered a prayer of thanks and praise to God. Continu- 
ing his address he said : 

"Among all those who have been roused in all parts of the world to 
righteous indignation by the injustice, none have shown such unpreju- 
diced sympathy for and implicit belief in the innocence of Dreyfus as have 
the press of this country. They were among the first to proclaim their 
certainty of his innocence, and they were fearless and indefatigable in 
their advocacy of him/ 


Chapter LXII. 

One of the outcomes of the Dreyfus verdict was a pretty general pro- 
posal to boycott the Paris Exposition of 1900. A sort of "holy alliance " 
against France was even suggested, but wise counsels prevailed and the 
matter was dropped. The New York Herald, referring to the boycott 
suggestion, said in an editorial September 15th: 

" The newspapers are filled with threats of a sort of ' holy alliance * 
against France and of boycotting the great Exposition of 1900. This 
would be more than a mistake; it would be a gross injustice. Foreigners 
are perfectly free to criticise the affairs of France, just as Frenchmen have 
a right to express their opinion on anything that takes place in no matter 
what country. 

" To criticise and condemn is one thing, but it is another and very 
different matter to interfere in the internal affairs of a country, as the 
would-be boycotters threaten to do. Any one can think what he pleases 
about the Dreyfus case. Everybody is privileged to discuss the Rennes 
decision and to approve it or stigmatize it. But to go far beyond that by 
threatening to punish Frenchmen and injure France because of an unsat- 
isfactory verdict by a court-martial for whose action neither France nor 
the French people are to blame is pushing matters to an extreme beyond 
all right, justice and reason. 

" ' You cannot indict a people,' said Edmund Burke. No more can 
you with any show of reason or justice boycott or indiscriminately con- 
demn a nation or a people. Those who are so zealous in fomenting this 
absurd agitation must remember that they are striking as well at all those 
who have been battling in behalf of Dreyfus. To boycott the Exposition 
would be to boycott France, whose highest court annulled the condemna- 
tion of 1894 and may yet annul that of 1899, whose Government is known 
to have desired an acquittal, whose press in large measure has protested 
against the conviction, and many of whose people condemn the Rennes 


" It is these agencies in France — the government, the judiciary, the 
press and the people — that brought about revision, and it is these that are 
still desirous of attaining what they believe to be truth and justice. 

" The threatened boycott is, moreover, as foolish as it is unjust, since 
it would be as detrimental to the interests of the boycotters as to those of 
the boycotted. 

"The movement to boycott the Exposition is already losing ground 
in Germany. The proposed resolution by the Municipal Council that 
the city of Berlin should not send any special exhibit to Paris has been 
abandoned. The Tageblatt in an article on the subject reminded German 
exhibitors that by staying away from the great Exposition they would 
only be giving an advantage to their competitors. 

" The effort to get up a mass meeting in this city to boycott the expo- 
sition has been also abandoned by its advocates, as the prominent citizens 
they approached refused to participate on the ground that it was ill-advised. 

"Fortunately there is reason to expect that all ill-advised newspaper 
manifestations will pass away like a fit of bad humor, and that the Exposi- 
tion of 1900 will have the great success it merits in view of the prodigious 
efforts it has called forth and the world-wide benefit it must prove. Both 
the United States and the German governments have refused to lend any 
official countenance to the foolishly threatened boycott, and we trust their 
commendable example will be followed by every nation represented in the 
grand enterprise." 

The English press devoted columns of space daily to the telegrams from 
all parts of the world relating to the proposed boycott of the Paris Exposition. 
Germany, Austria, and Italy also came to the front. But the German 
government organs were quick to issue a warning against the proposal. 

"Germany has no occasion to take the lead in this matter," says the 
Cologne Gazette. " She ought to leave this to other States, which, perhaps, 
would not consider it undesirable that Germany, of all powers, should adopt 
a hostile attitude toward France in this matter." 

According to the The Daily Mail, of London, which was a strong ad- 
vocate of a general boycott of the Paris Exposition as a protest against the 
Rennes verdict. Baron Suffield, president of the Article Club, an organiza- 
tion including in its membership the Colonial Agents General and repre- 
senting commercial firms with an aggregate capital of £2,000,000,000, 
favored a boycott. 

The English papers were full of letters from individuals and several 


firms announcing their withdrawal from the Paris Exposition, and urging 
the Government to do likewise, but the British Government never con- 
templated taking such a step. 

M. Max O'Eell (Paul Blouet) wrote a letter to The Daily Chronicle of 
London, saying that a public expression of sympathy would go against 
Dreyfus, adding: 

" For God's sake, use your influence to stop it. But for the universal 
sympathy shown for Dreyfus, whom I personally believe to be innocent, 
in England and Germany, he would have been acquitted. It is a terrible 
thing to say, but I say it and am not afraid of contradiction." 

Sir Charles Dilke, M.P., a well-known authority on foreign affairs, in 
an interview in London, September 13th, deprecated the expression of re- 
sentment by foreigners in regard to the Dreyfus verdict. Such action, Sir 
Charles said, was likely to make the situation worse for Colonel Picquart 
and other Dreyfus witnesses. 

The secretary of the British Commission to the Paris Exposition said 
the same day that intimations of withdrawal had been received from only 
twelve intending exhibitors, while nearly 2,000 applications for space had 
been received from individuals and firms in Great Britain, India, and the 
British Colonies. 

In many parts of the United States steps toward a boycott of the Paris 
Exposition were taken. Many Western firms and individuals who had 
contemplated making exhibits at the Paris Exposition changed their plans 
for a time. Among the concerns which were said to have cancelled their 
orders for space were the California Canneries of San Francisco, the big- 
gest fruit-canning concern on the Pacific coast, which is controlled by an 
English syndicate, and the North El Paso and Northeastern Eailway of 
New Mexico, which planned a fine mineral exhibit. It was also reported 
that the feeling on the Dreyfus case was so strong in Los Angeles that a 
demand would be made for the repeal of the act passed by the last legisla- 
ture appropriating SI 30,000 for the California exhibit. 

The Boston School Board at its session September 13th passed an order 
which practically meant the boycotting of the Paris Exposition, for which 
a large school exhibit was planned. But this was subsequently revoked. 

Many manufacturers of Troy, N. Y., who had made application for 
space for exhibits at the Paris Exposition decided for a time to take no 


part whatever in it. William Conners, proprietor of the Troy Paint and 
Color Works, had made preparations for an elaborate display, while collar, 
cuff, and shirt manufacturers had in process of manufacture many speci- 
mens that were to comprise a special department at the French metropolis. 
The result of the Dreyfus court-martial caused a cessation of preparations, 
but they were subsequently resumed. 

The United States Commissioner-General to the Paris Exposition, Mr. 
Ferdinand W. Peck, said in an interview at Chicago, September 13th, 
that notwithstanding the newspaper statements that merchants in several 
parts of the country had refused to send exhibits to the Paris Exposition 
on account of the Dreyfus verdict, none had indicated to him any desire 
to do so. When asked if he would refuse information if any of the exhib- 
itors should withdraw. Commissioner Peck said he was not ready to answer 
that question, but he said he did not think it was right for him to disclose 
anything about the American exhibitors until their exhibits were installed. 
Some two hundred persons have applied to him for lists of the American 
exhibitors, but he has refused to furnish them. As he has refused to dis- 
close the names of those who have taken space, he thought he ought also 
to refuse to tell if they relinquish it. 

Eabbi Joseph Leucht, of Newark, N. J., was quoted as saying on Sep- 
tember 13th: 

" The punishment for this outrage will surely come. France is on the 
verge of revolution to-day ; a bloody day of rebellion is not far off. As 
far as the Jews in this country are concerned, I do not think any concerted 
action will take place to resent the dastardly deed. France will have to 
meet the outburst of indignation of the whole civilized world. 

"People are now questioning whether they should visit the exhibition 
of a land where human rights are trampled upon, and possibly governments 
will reconsider their participation in the affair. I hope, at least, that free 
America will take some official act to register its disapproval of this crying 

" The Jews of this country will stay away from the Paris Expositien, 
and if some of them disregard this warning they will speedily rue it when 
arriving there. The cry " A bas les Juifs ! " will greet their ears wherever 
they go. As for poor Dreyfus himself, this trial has brought him a 
greater vindication than he could ever hope for." 


Chapter LXIIL 


The correspondent of the New York Sun, Mr. H. R. Chamberlain, 
who described the Dreyfus trial for his paper, writing from Rennes under 
date of September 11th, described the strange experiences of the army of 
newspaper correspondents there. He said : 

" It is for the pleasure of writing something from Eennes which shall 
include nothing about Dreyfus and his cause that I am sending this letter. 
Tor five long weeks the three hundred newspaper men assembled here 
from all parts of the world where a public press exists have seen, heard, 
thought, dreamed, discussed, written — nothing but Dreyfus. Two or three 
times, while driving or cycling within a few miles of the Breton capital, I 
have come across intelligent, contented peasants who had never heard the 
name Dreyfus, and I envied and congratulated them. In an hour or two 
I shall leave Rennes, never, I hope, to return, but before I go I want to 
tell what a nice town it is and describe for them two or three odd incidents 
which have added a touch of comedy to the serious business of our mis- 
sion here. 

"As for Rennes, most guide-books tell U3 that it is the cleanest if not 
the healthiest city in Europe. One's eyesight tends to confirm the claim. 
They even skim the surface of the almost stagnant river in the centre of 
the town every morning. One's nostrils suggest doubts on the subject, 
and one's experience of existence in so-called first-class hotels yields only 
cynical incredulity. I will not dwell upon the matter beyond remarking 
that scarcely any of those whose duties compelled them to remain in 
Rennes during the whole five weeks escaped one or more sharp attacks of 

" As for the people of Rennes (always excepting two or three of the 
principal hotel-keepers) their visitors have words only of grateful acknowl- 
edgment of kindness, courtesy, and most patient forbearance. American 


readers will not appreciate the significance of the latter phrase. Heie is a 
provincial capital, outside the line of tourist travel, inhabited by a sturdy, 
honest, intensely religious but narrow-minded people. They saw their 
town almost taken possession of five weeks ago by a small army of for- 
eigners and Jews, They hate each of these classes with the ignorant but 
accumulated hatred of generations. Moreover, they believed these inva- 
ders had come for the purpose of overthrowing a just judgment. Any othejr 
verdict than that given yesterday would have been an outrage upon justice 
in their ignorant eyes. And yet for five weeks the people of Eennes tol- 
erated the presence of these unwelcome visitors, saw th^ir streets, and caf^s 
and public institutions almost monopolized by them, and said no word of 
insult, discourtesy, or resentment — except in their newspapers. I prefer 
to believe that the newspapers of Eennes, which in several instances 
heaped vile abuse and obscene invective, especially upon the correspon- 
dents of the foreign press, represent only the low, venal minds of their 
writers, who, alas, typify only too faithfully the degeneration of journal- 
ism in France. 

" It is not often that the professional side of a newspaper correspon- 
dent's work becomes a matter of public interest, but perhaps this unique 
experience here at Eennes is entitled to rank as an exception. No pre- 
vious event in the world's history has called together a corps of chroni- 
clers so representative in its scope. None, it should be remembered, came 
by invitation, as at the coronation of the Czar or the crowning of the little 
Queen of Holland. Even the Queen's Jubilee in London failed to draw 
such an international gathering of journalistic clans. Papers in Japan and 
even in Turkey sent correspondents to tell this story at Eennes. A paper 
which I had never heard of in Norway spent SI 00 a day to give its read- 
ers an account of the trial, and a single journal in Vienna expended 
more than $20,000 in telegraph tolls at 'urgent' rates during the five 

"Every disposition to facilitate the work of the correspondents was 
shown by the authorities. We learned after a few days that each one of us 
had been quietly photographed, and full descriptions, with all that could 
be learaed of our antecedents, had been sent to Paris in a special dossier 
by the omnipresent ' agents of the State ' ; but nobody could object to this 
harmless and flattering attention. Keithe:r could we find any fault with 


the assignment of places in the trial hall, which relegated the foreign cor- 
respondents to the seats most distant from the stage, where the testimony 
of many witnesses was inaudible. After all, the ease to be heard was pri- 
marily a domestic French affair, and I doubt if in any other country on 
earth the same consideration would have been shown to foreign newspaper 
men, whose presence the great majority of Frenchmen regarded as an 

" I explained in one of my earlier despatches that each foreign corre- 
spondent received half a ticket to the Lycde. This was an immense con- 
cession from Colonel Jouaust's first dictum, which was : 'Assign one ticket 
to each group of ten. That will enable oach man to attend one session in 
ten, and it will be quite enough for him.' Fortunately, the French mili- 
tary idea of journalistic needs did not prevail, and the committee of the 
* Presse Judiciare ' was able to induce the doughty president to take a more 
liberal view of the situation. Even the half-ticket regulation was modi- 
fied to some extent, and each morning admission was granted to as many 
of the banished moiety of foreign correspondents as there remained empty 
seats after the ticket holders had entered. Finally the difficulty in hear- 
ing the evidence M^as partially overcome by securing reports of the testi- 
mony sheet by sheet from French reporters near the witness-stand, and 
thus the actual proceedings in the court-room were prepared for readers 

" The authorities of Rennes provided also a great hall with a special 
telegraph office, for the use of visiting correspondents. The Bourse du 
Commerce was transformed into a vast editorial room. One hundred and 
fifty writing tables, nailed to the floor to prevent noise and confusion, 
comfortable chairs, pens, ink, and paper, and courteous attendants were all 
at the disposal of French and foreign writers during the five weeks. 

" The problem of quick communication with the outside world was an 
ever-present difficulty from the first day of the trial until the last. There 
were available six telegraph and four telephone wires from Eennes to 
Paris, two wires to Brest, the landing-place of the French Cable Com- 
pany's lines to America, and one wire to Havre, where the Commercial 
Company's cables touch. The best apparatus and most skilful operators 
in France were assembled at Pvcnnes for the tremendous task of oonveying 
the ftews of the trial to the four (^uarter^ of the world. Considering thq 


facilities available, the result was probablj the best accomplishment in 
telegraphy in this or any other country. On the first clay more than 
650,000 words were transmitted by telegraph alone. This quantity was 
exceeded on the day Labori was shot, and on other days it varied between 
the maximum and a minimum of 350,000 words. 

" It would be unfair, perhaps, to criticise the quality of the work in 
view of its overwhelming quantity. And operator who sends at highest 
speed long messages in any of half a dozen languages which he does not 
understand can hardly be blamed if the despatches fail to arrive letter per- 
fect at their destination. I confess I groaned in anguish of spirit when 
copies of Tlie Sun reached Eennes containing my despatches sent during 
the early days of the trial. There was great improvement later — the 
French operator would probably be unkind enough to say this was due 
solely to my painstaking attempts to write a legible hand. When it is 
considered, however, that nearly one-half the matter sent over the wires 
from Eennes was written in English, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish, 
or Swedish, it must be admitted that the accomplishment of the Eennes 
telegraph corps was something stupendous. 

"There were some amusing incidents in connection with the sending 
of the news of the trial, and one or two will bear repeating. The corre- 
spondent of a London evening paper rushed to the telegraph office on the 
afternoon of the day Labori was shot, and handed in a despatch of about 
nine hundred words. All correspondents had deposited in advance ample 
funds to cover the cost of telegrams in order to avoid the delay of frequent 
payments. The receiver, therefore, accepted the despatch with the custo- 
mary ' Merci, monsieur.' The sender happened to wait for a moment, and 
presently saw the telegraph clerk pick up his message, cross the room, 
climb on a chair, and carefully place the despatch on top of a cabinet. 
The man returned to his seat, received a few more telegrams from the per- 
sons waiting at the window, checked them, gave them to a messenger to 
take to the operating room, got up again and carried a heavy ledger over 
to the cabinet and deposited it on top of the London man's despatch. The 
correspondent was mystified, but did not interfere until the clerk had re- 
ceived a few more telegrams and had carried a few more miscellaneous 
articles across the room and piled them upon the cabinet. Then the Lon- 
doner remonstrated gently : 


"' Aren't vou going to send my despatch? ' 

"' Your despatch has been sent, Monsieur,' was the calm reply, 

" * No, it hasn't. It's over there on top of that cabinet,' insisted the 

The clerk looked at him as if he thought he had been bereft of his 

" ' Nothing of the kind. I sent your despatch to the operating-room 
as soon as you handed it to me,' was the polite but firm reply. 

" The Englishman began to get angry, and in rather peremptory tones 
asked the clerk to verify his words by examining the top of the cabinet. 
The clerk was sure by this time that his interlocutor was crazy. He mut- 
tered something about these English, and sharply asked the insistent dis- 
turber to stand aside and not block the line at the window. The enraged 
journalist hurried off, and found a French confrere of influence, to whom 
he explained the situation. Together they returned to the telegraph office 
and sent for the chief. The case was laid before him. He went to the 
cabinet, lifted down a heap of things on top, and there at the bottom of 
all lay the despatch. Then, naturally, the Londoner began to say things, 
but the chief interrupted him : 

" ' Now, be reasonable, you mustn't be angry with this poor fellow. 
Have a little consideration of the circumstances. He has been in tears all 
day ever since he heard Labori had been shot. He doesn't know what he 
is doing, Eeally it isn't fair for you to be cross with him,' 

" And what could the correspondent do after that explanation ? 

"How to communicate the news of the court-martial's verdict most 
expeditiously to the waiting world has, of course, been the problem upper- 
most in every correspondent's mind for days past. Many schemes were 
devised for securing a few seconds' precedence, and some of them were 
sufficiently ingenious to deserve success, but in the end pure chance proved 
to be the controlling factor. This applies to the despatches announcing 
the judgment filed by the correspondent here after the decision had been 
announced in court by Colonel Jouaust. These telegrams poured into the 
Eennes telegraph office in a perfect avalanche, and, as usually happens in 
times of such excitement, the order of dispatching did not follow the exact 
order of receipt. In fact, the last was sometimes first. Those of us who 
have had experience of similar confusion at presidential elections at Ver- 


sailles and other occasions had prepared for this emergency. We wrote 
our despatches in duplicate, filed one at the earliest possible moment, and 
waited to slip the other into the distracted clerk's hand at the moment 
when he handed over the swelling pile of telegrams for transmission. The 
chances were that the top or last message would be sent first. 

" It is probable, despite all the rush at Eennes, that the first news of 
the verdict reached New York via London. Some of us learned yesterday- 
morning that the decision would be telephoned to the home office in Paris 
a few minutes before it was publicly announced in the court-room at 
Rennes. As a matter of fact, at the moment when the decisive words 
were being read to the assembled audience in the Lyc^e, the news had 
been received at London, and had been transferred to the cable, which de- 
livered it in New York three minutes late. 

" The fate of two plans of rival American correspondents for beating 
their fellows deserves to be recorded. They were not satisfied with con- 
veying the news from the court-room to the telegraph ofiice — a distance of 
less than a quarter of a mile — by foot or bicycle ; so they arranged sys- 
tems of signals. In one case, a series of boys stationed at intervals along 
the route was to pass along the signal of ' guilty ' by holding the right 
hand high in the air, while both arms in that position would signify ' in- 
nocent.' The boys were carefully drilled, and the system worked perfectly 
until the fateful moment came. Then the first boy gave the signal pro- 
perly, but the second lost his head. Instead of raising his hand he 
clapped both arms to his sides and started pell-mell for the telegraph 
office. His employer saw him coming and ran to meet him, unable to 
imagine what had happened. The boy simply flung himself into the 
newspaper man's arms. Too much excited himself to think of any French, 
the correspondent shook the little wretch and shouted in English : 

"'What is it?' 

" Then the boy bethought himself. Up went his right hand high in 
the air. ' Coupable,' he yelped, and trotted with his arm still up behind 
his employer the rest of the way to the telegraph office. 

" The other incident was no less tragic. Another series of boys were to 
wave red discs if the verdict was guilty, blue ones for the four-to-three 
verdict of dishonorable acquittal, and white for innocent. The correspon- 
dent who relied on this scheme made the fatal mistake of stationing a very 


small boy at the Lyc^e end of the line. A crowd of more than a hundred 
men and boys was waiting at the slot beneath a window through which 
the word was to come. All broke and ran at the same moment when the 
news was received, and the small boy with a red disc was simply knocked 
down and trampled on by the crowd before he could give the signal." 



The following Dictionary of the Dreyfus case contains ready references 
to the leading actors and documents in the famous drama : 

Abeville, Colonel d' — Former Deputy Chief of the Fourth Bureau. 

Beaurepairb, M. Quesnay de. — Former President of the Civil Section of 
the Court of Cassation, who resigned and bitterly attacked Dreyfus. 

Bertillon, M. — Chief of the Identification Department of the Paris Pre- 
fecture of Police. He testified at both of the court-martials as an ex- 
pert in handwriting, against Dreyfus. 

Bertin, Lieutenant-Colonel — Chief of Dreyfus's bureau at Military 
Headquarters, 1894. 

Bertulus, M. — The magistrate who made the preliminary examination of 
the Esterhazy case. He received the late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's 
confession of forgery. 

Billot, General — Minister of War (April, 1896-June, 1898) during the 
time of the Henry forgeries. To him Scheurer-Kestner opened up his 
doubts on the validity of the conviction of Dreyfus. Billot played him 
false, and took his stand on the "authority of the chose juyee.^^ 

Bertrand, M. — Representative of the government at Zola's second trial. 
He violated the law for the purpose of saving Du Paty de Clam, the 

'* Blanche " and " Speranza " Telegrams — Two telegrams forged by Du 
Paty de Clam and Esterhazy, and sent to Picquart with the object of 
"bluffing" him into the belief that a lady, who was in the "plot," had 
given away the "secret" that he forged the Esterhazy "petit bleu." 
The " Speranza " despatch was sent to Picquart especially with the object 
of inspiring official circles with the belief that he was an agent of the 
Dreyfus syndicate. 

BoiSDEFFRE, GENERAL DE — Chief of the General Staff at the time of the 
Dreyfus prosecution. He resigned because Henry deceived him. He 
was in touch with all the Esterhazy trickeries. 


Bordereau — The document found in bits among the waste paper at the 
German Embassy, pieced together, and attributed to Dreyfus, though 
undoubtedly Esterhazy wrote it. It offers secret information, and is, of 
course, unsigned and undated. 

BouLAisrcY, Mme. de — A relation of Esterhazy and an acquaintance of Colo- 
nel Picquart. Esterhazy tried to drag her into the conspiracy hatched 
against Picquart by suggesting that she wrote certain letters. It was 
absolutely false. 

Brisset, Major — Government Commissary, or prosecutor, at the court- 
martial of 1894. 

Bbugere, Lieutenant — An ofiicer of the Artillery Reserve; witness in 

Carriere, Major — Government Commissary (prosecutor) at the Dreyfus 
court-martial of 1899. 

Carvalho, Captain — Officer of the Artillery; witness at Rennes. 

Casimir-Perier, M. — President of the Republic at the time of the Drey- 
fus trial. He had the courage to speak out to the Court of Cassation 
and announce that the prisoner was convicted on secret evidence. 

Castelin, M. — Member of Assembly, from the district of Aisne. He gave 
notice of an interpellation of the Government in 1896, which stirred the 
authorities to renewed activity and helped to bring about the revision of 
the case. 

Cavaignac, M. — Minister of War (October, 1895- April, 1896; June, 
1898-September, 1898). He announced the discovery of Henry's for- 
gery, but reaffirmed his belief in the guilt of Dreyfus. He is a cousin 
of Du Paty de Clam. 

Cernuschi, Eugene de — An Austro-Hungarian refugee who testified at 

" Cette Canaille de D " — A phrase in one of the documents of the 

secret dossier. It does not refer to Dreyfus, but to a subordinate, whose 
name is said to be known to the French War Office (said to be Dubois). 

Chanoine, General — Minister of War (September 18, 1898-October 25, 
1898). He was chiefly memorable for his stagy resignation in the 

Charavay, M. — Archivist and expert in ancient manuscripts. He testified 
at both courts-martial. 

Chautemps, M. — Minister of Colonies in 1894. He tried to mitigate Drey- 
fus' s sufferings in his exile, but without success. 

Cochefort, M. — Chief of the French Detective Department. 



CoMMiNGES, Mlle. Blanche de — " La Dame Blanche '* (The White 
Lady"), a wealthy lady who has attended all the court scenes in the 
Dreyfus drama, 

CoRDiER, Colonel — Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Department in 1894. 

Court de Cassation — The French Court of Appeals. The body which 
decreed the re-trial of Dreyfus. 

Cuers, Eichard — ^A spy in the Government service. 

CuiGNET, Captain — He discovered Colonel Henry's forgery, and was satis- 
fied with the rest of the documents of the secret dossier, which he col- 
lected and filed. 

Darius, M. — Procureur-General of Cayenne, where Dreyfus was in exile. 
He first announced to Dreyfus the order for revision of his case. 

Darras, General — He commanded the troops and officiated at the degra- 
dation of Dreyfus. 

Delagorgue, M. — President at the Zola trial. He made history by his stock 
saying in favor of the War Office party : " The question shall not be put." 

Demange, Maitre — Dreyfus's counsel at the court-martial and during the 
Eennes trial. 

" Dixi Article " — Written by Esterhazy in the Eclair, bitterly attacking 
Piquart on private information illegally lent him by the War Office. 

" Document Liberateur " — The letter beginning " Cette canaille de 
D ." This was the famous one which Esterhazy threatened Presi- 
dent Faure he would disclose, unless protected against Picquart. He al- 
leged it had been stolen by Picquart for a foreign embassy. Esterhazy 
eventually returned it to the War Office, after it had served its purpose. 

Dossier, The Secret — A collection of more or less private documents bear- 
ing on the case, only one of which, unless the War Office has manufac- 
tured any more forgeries, mentions Dreyfus by name, and this is abso- 
lutely commonplace and innocent. 

Dreyfus, M. Mathieu — The brother of the captain, was one of the pio- 
neers of the campaign for revision. It was he who first denounced Ester- 
hazy as the writer of the bordereau. 

Drumont, M. — Editor of the Libre Parole, who first published details of 
the discovery of the bordereau. 

Du Paty de Clam, Lieutenant- Colonel — The melodramatic villain of 
the piece. He set a trap to surprise Dreyfus by dictating to him the 
text of the bordereau. He was a warm supporter of Esterhazy, and 
acted the part of the "Veiled Lady." He assisted in forging telegrams 
to entrap Picquart, and did the dirty work of the War Office. 


EcHEMANN, Lieutenant-Colonel — Member of the court-martial of 1894. 

EsTERHAZT, CouNT Walsin — One of the chief opponents of Dreyfus. M. 
Mathieu Dreyfus having denounced him as the writer of the bordereau, 
he "was tried and acquitted, amid an anti-Jewish manifestation. He 
was subsequently arrested on a charge of forging the " Speranza " and 
"Blanche" telegrams, but liberated on a technical point. He was, how- 
ever, expelled from the army, and has since gravitated between Hol- 
land, London, and Paris, at one time fully admitting he wrote the bor- 
dereau by desire of his superiors, and then denying he ever said so. 
There is little doubt but what he did write it. With Du Paty de Clam, 
he'stooped to any anti-Dreyfus trick, no matter how mean, but he played 
all parties equally false. 

Fabre, General — Former Chief of the Fourth Bureau of the General Staff. 

Faure, M. Felix — Ex-President of the French Republic, and an unquali- 
fied supporter of the General Staff against Dreyfus. 

Florentine, Major — Member of the court-martial of 1894. 

Fonds-Lamothes, M. des — A former artillery officer — now an engineer. 

Forzinetti, Commandant — Director of the Cherche-Midi prison, where 
Dreyfus was first confined. He denied the prisoner made any confession, 
and eventually, for affirming a belief in his innocence, fell into disgrace. 

Freycinet, M. de — Former Premier and former Minister of War, known 
as "The Little White Mouse." 

Freystaetter, Captain — A member of the court-martial of 1894, and a 
fearless defender of Dreyfus at Rennes. 

Gallet, Major — A member of the court-martial of 1894. 

Gallifet, General the Marquis de — Minister of War at the time of the 
Eennes court-martial. Called " The Hope of France, " on account of his 
fearless adherence to truth and enforcement of strict discipline. 

Gallopin, Major — Officer of the Artillery, who testified at Eennes. 

Germain, M. — A groom in the employ of Kuhlman, a stable-keeper in 

GoNSE, General — Assistant Chief of the General Staff. He was the im- 
mediate superior of Picquart, against whom he was, after a moment's 
hesitation, a consistently warm supporter of Esterhazy. He had doubts 
about Dreyfus's guilt till the influence of Headquarters made him solid 
with the other generals, since when he bitterly opposed revision. 

Grandmaison, M. Georges Charles Alfred Marie Mullin de — Deputy 
from the Saumur District of Maine-et-Loire, a friend of M. de Beau- 
repaire. He made a sensational speech at Eennes. 


Gribelin, M. — Principal Archivist of the Headquarters' Staff, aud an 
abettor of Du Paty de Clam, 

GuENEE — A private detective. 

GuERiN, M. — Former Minister of Justice. 

GuERiN, Lieutenant-Colonel — He was ordered to attend and report on 
the degradation of Dreyfus. 

Hadamard, M. — The father-in-lav?' of Dreyfus, a rich Paris diamond mer- 

Hanotaux, M. — Former Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Hartmann, Major — Officer of the Artillery, witness at Rennes. 

Havet, M. Louis — A member of the Institute and a Professor of the Col- 
lege of France, who testified at Rennes. 

Hennion, M. — A detective; Chief of Secret Police at Rennes. 

Henrt, Lieutenaxt-Colonel — Picquart's successor in the Intelligence 
Department. To supply non-existent evidence he forged a telegram 
which was inserted in the secret dossier. On discovery and arrest he 
cut his throat in Mont A^alerien prison. 

Henry, Mme — Widow of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Henry. 

Jouaust, Colonel — President of the Dreyfus court-martial of 1899. 

KuHLMAN, M. — An Alsatian livery stable-keeper, who testified at Rennes. 

Labori, Maitre Fernand — Counsel of Dreyfus, Zola, and Picquart. 

Lebon, M. — Former Minister of the Colonies, during Dreyfus' s exile. 

Lebrun-Renault, Captain — An officer to whom, so it was at one time 
alleged, Dreyfus made a confession. As a matter of fact he did nothing 
of the kind; only the War Office, by purposely distorting the captain's 
report on the circumstances, made it appear that he did. 

Le Monnier, Captain — One of the Headquarters' Staff. 

Le Rond, Major — A professor at the Military School. 

Maurel-Pries, Colonel — President of the Dreyfus court-martial of 1894. 

Mercier, General — Minister of War (November, 1893-January, 1895) 
when Dreyfus was arrested. He was his bitterest foe, and utterly im- 
placable. It was he who laid secret evidence before the court-martial 

Muller, M. Mertian de. — A friend of M. de Beaurepaire. 

MiTRT, Major de— Officer of the Hussars, who testified at Rennes. 

D'Ormescheville, Major Besson — He drew up the "act of accusation" 
for the court-martial of 1894. He assumed allegations of guilt to be guilt. 

Paleologue, M. — Foreign Office expert, and correct translator of the 
Panizzardi telegram, which Henry falsified. 


Panizzardi, Major — The Italian military attache, supposed, erroneously, 
to have had relations with Dreyfus. He sent the telegram to his gov- 
ernment on which Henry based his forgery. 

Paray-Jayal, M. — Handwriting expert, who testified at Rennes. 

Pats, Mme. de — The mistress of Esterhazy. 

Patroi^, Major — Member of the court-martial of 1894. 

Pellieux, General — One of the French General Staff. He supported 
Esterhazy and used the Henry forgery in the Zola trial as an " abso- 
lute proof " of the guilt of Dreyfus. 

Pelletier, M. — Handwriting expert. 

" Petit Bleu " — A telegram found at the Germany Embassy, written by 
Colonel von Schwartzkoppen, the German military attache, to Esterhazy, 
inviting him to call. It was torn up and thrown into a waste basket, 
the writer having changed his mind about sending it. It was found 
there by secret agents. Esterhazy contended that it was a forgery. 

PicARD, M. Lemergier — War Ofl&ce agent and forger of the humbler type. 
He laid a trap for the Dreyfus party, which failed. He was imprisoned 
and was said to have hanged himself. Other reports say he was mur- 

PiCQUART, Lie-utenant-Coloxel — Ex-hcad of the Intelligence Department. 
He took up the cause of Dreyfus on the ground that the evidence was 
insufficient, and he also produced the famous " petit bleu " (telegram) al- 
leged to have been written to Esterhazy by the German attache. Colonel 
von Schwartzkoppen, making an appointment but which was not sent. 
He was removed from the army and imprisoned on a charge of forging 
the " petit bleu " himself, but was since liberated. 

Polytechnic School — The school where French officers are educated, cor- 
responding to AVest Point in the United States. 

R A VARY, Major — He drew up the blundering report at the time of the 
Esterhazy court-martial. 

RiSBOURG, General — Commander of the Republican Guard in Paris in 

Roche, Captain — Member of the court-martial of 1894. 

RocHEFORT, M. Henri — Editor of the Intransigeant newspaper. 

Roget, General — The alleged manufacturer of nearly all the "War Office 
reports about Dreyfus, the revision of whose trial he bitterly opposed. 
He was the savior of the General Staff in its most illicit machinations, 
and that was why M. D^roul^de tried to induce him to march on the 


Sandherr, Colonetj — Former Chief of the Intelligence Department of the 
French Army. He died from brain disease soon after the first trial, at 
which he played a prominent part. 

Saussier, General — Military Governor of Paris. 

Savignaud, M. — A former orderly of Colonel Picquart. 

Scheurer-Kestnee, Senator — The former Vice-President of the Senate, 
since dead. He was the first public man who prominently took up the 
cause of revision (in July, 1897). He was an able champion of Drey- 
fus, and was not afraid of consequences. 

Schneider, Colonel — Former Austrian military attache at Paris. 

Schwartzkoppen, Colonel — The German military attache in Paris, to 
whom the bordereau was sent, and who was alleged to have written the 
" petit bleu " to Esterhazy. 

Syndicate, The — A figment of the imagination of the Anti-Semites, who 
came to the conclusion that a number of wealthy persons were financing 
and " working " the Dreyfus campaign. 

Teysonniere, M. — Handwriting expert, who testified at the 1894 court- 

Trarieux, Senator — Former Minister of Justice, witness at Rennes trial. 

Tomps, M. — A special Commissary of the Railway Police, who first photo- 
graphed the bordereau. 

Yalabregue, M. — Captain Dreyfus's brother-in-law, residing at Carpen- 
tras, with whom he is living with his family after his release. 

" Veiled Lady, " The — This was Du Paty de Clam, disguised, who handed 
the " document liberateur " to Esterhazy near the Arc de Triomphe. It 
was suggested that Esterhazy thought the lady was inspired by revenge 
on Picquart. 

Veugmon, Dr. — Physician in charge of Dreyfus at Devil's Island. 

ViGuiE, M. — Director of General Safety, French Government Police. 

Weill, Henri — A former officer of the Headquarters' Staff. 

Weyler Letter — A forged letter, incriminating Dreyfus, sent to the War 
Office. The author, probably, was Du Paty de Clam. 

Zola, Emile — The novelist. He published the now famous letter of ac- 
cusation (" J'acciise") against the entire French General Staff, accusing 
them, in point of fact, of a gigantic conspiracy to convict Dreyfus. 
He was put on trial, convicted, fined, and sentenced to imprisonment. 
He appealed, and his sentence was quashed. He was again prosecuted 
on a sentence in his article which barred any reference to the Dreyfus 
case. Hence he permitted judgment to go by default, and, being con- 


demned, left the country, appealed, and lived in England, retiarning 
only recently to France. His celebrated denunciation is now proved to 
have been founded on absolute truth. 
ZuRLiNDEN, General — War Minister (January, 1895-October, 1895). Ex- 
Military Governor of Paris. He is chiefly memorable for his expres- 
sion in the Chamber of Deputies of absolute conviction of the guilt of 



1 3 1983 





\ "^""° 


Harding, William 

Dreyfus: The prisoner of 
De^-il's Inland